Ben, IT’S A SIGN!

It’s a simple request to avoid waste. How is that arrogant? Trying to achieve sustainability is not the same thing as trying to fight global warming. Al Gore did not put up the sign. Even if you disagree that global warming is happening, you can’t deny that resources are limited.

The ideas of sustainability don’t have a foundation in IPCC science. They are founded in a decades old idea called the tragedy of the commons. Simply put, if everyone is given access to limited resources, they will each try to get as much as they can for themselves until the resource is used up and no one gets any more. I assume this is what is meant by calling showers a privilege. They can’t be guaranteed if everyone wastes water and the well dries up. Running out of water may not be a problem to us, but it is a real problem in some parts of the world, such as China, where so much water is used upstream that major rivers dry up downstream. That’s not to say that saving water here helps them, but once a again, it’s a sign with a request.

The only hypocrisy in the environmental movement at Lehigh is what they leave undone. The campus is full of lawns an ornamental plants that use orders of magnitude more water than that sign will save.

I suspect the SustainabLehigh is actually a cover for the organization Sustainably High, which seeks to supply the community with organic, locally grown recreational drugs. That joke was your reward for reading my whole post.

Ben,

Great job of pointing out the silliness of much that goes on at Lehigh. The environmental nonsense is probably only outdone by the diversity and multicultural zealots.

But I digress. I note in the summer 2009 issue of the Alumni Bulletin page 5 that the “GREEN HOUSE” is foolishly doing its part to accomplish virtually nothing and more likely taking a step backwards — to wit:

“…GH residents learn other eco-friendly
skills, such as brewing homemade shampoo and laundry detergent, baking bread, and cooking vegetarian meals.

They compost their food scraps and nail and hair clippings in an igloo-shaped bin out back.”

While I’ll agree that it is often “fun” to do things like bake your own bread, it is hardly as energy efficient as a professional bakery operation where ovens are used more or less continuously rather than heated up and cooled down as is done on a small scale operation.

And “my goodness” do these silly twits really think they are doing something monumental to protect the environment by composting their nail clippings???!!!!

Give me a break.

Greenie,
Thank you for your comments. You do make a valid point that the sign may not be linked to climate change, and that certainly the supply of water, at some extreme, is limited.
However, water is a resource in the US with a price of about $0.0015 per gallon, a little over a tenth of a cent. When water becomes scarce, the price will rise, but until that time the driving factor must be ideology as opposed to practical reasoning.
Since the sign is driven by ideology, it is linked to the climate change hypothesis and its proponents. You suggest that the Green movement at Lehigh’s hypocrisy is that they haven’t gone far enough. I agree that’s hypocritical – which is the entire problem with the Green movement – almost none of them practice what they preach.
My point, essentially, is that the whole ‘Green’ movement is based more in ideology than in fact. For more on that, please see my article on the Waxman-Markey Bill: http://www.lehighpatriot.com/bmumma/sparing-change-for-a-changing-climate/
Getting back to the signs themselves, sure it’s just writing on a wall. Many things start with a simple sign or document – the Declaration of Independence was just writing on paper. But writing can lead to much bigger things. Thus, it is important that if you value your rights over the Green ideology then you should speak out against this sign. Sure it is a request now, but requests can easily become suggestions, which can become norms, which can become rules. The radical and restrictive methods of the Green movement need to be opposed early and often to prevent this.

Ben,

I always enjoy reading your articles, usually because they are so brilliantly off-base. Let’s start with the references you cite:

I presume you meant for [1] and [3] to be examples of what you describe in the relevant sentences (equating global warming deniers to holocaust deniers and distorting facts). While the former may be true (haven’t read the article, so I can’t say if she outright claims that to be the case), I know, for a fact that Al Gore doesn’t say “I present these facts which I have blown out of proportion.” They are like any facts; they require context and until you present them with their relevant context, you can easily go arguing back and forth and successfully getting nowhere. Either way, references are meant to be documents in support of your claim, not theoretical examples that you fail to justify as such.

[2] and [4] are people on a specific day. I can’t tell from your citation whether they wrote something, appeared on TV, or defecated on the Washington Mall in protest. Furthermore, given the context, I can’t tell if these people support your arguments that “inconvenient” data has been thrown out and that many people have denied global warming or if they throw out inconvenient data or treat global warming as fact, in the style of [1] and [3].

Without going into too much detail, I counter that you’re missing the point of the whole discussion (and, if it’s any consolation, you’re not the only one). The debate is not over whether global warming is a reality (it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the average July temperature [for instance] tends to be increasing, given data from the past several decades); the debate is over whose fault, if anyone’s, global warming is and whether we have an obligation to do something about it. Most meteorologists seem to have come to the consensus that the warming trend has become more rapid since the Industrial Revolution, and anyone who isn’t a meteorologist really isn’t enough of an expert in the field to say otherwise — even if they’re a politician.

What this article boils down to is that you saw a sign and felt offended by it because it disagreed with your beliefs. The problem here is that you’re reading far too much into the sign. First, nowhere do they say anything about taking showers away or limiting time. That is an assumption you have made (though you do note that the sign only “implies” that).

Second, Lehigh is not saying that “showering is a privilege,” as you state in your article, but that showering *at the gym, after working out* is a privilege. Generally, a shower after working out at the gym is intended to rinse the sweat off of your body; it is not intended to be your daily shower. Thus, I don’t believe it is unreasonable to expect those showers to be relatively short. All of the dorms have showers; even if Lehigh closed the gym showers, the administration would not be depriving students of the ability to observe proper hygiene.

Finally, if your argument is on wasted spending, are you really going to split hairs over something that easily cost far less than $100? Even if you add in the cost of labor, that’s only the contributions of a handful of alumni, even if they’re stingy — and I’m sure there are at least that many who would be more than willing to pay their share of the cost of that sign.

Mr. Parks,
Thank you for your comment. Regarding climate change, you should read my article: http://www.lehighpatriot.com/bmumma/sparing-change-for-a-changing-climate/. As I detail thoroughly there, there are many heavily decorated and intelligent scientists who say that anthropogenic (human induced) climate change is false.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the climate. However, many of the people referenced in that article are experts. Certainly there are some experts who say otherwise. So which side is correct? I am convinced by the arguments and facts available that human emissions have a very small (almost negligible) role in the climate.

Additionally, as I also detail in the other article, the economics of “combating” climate change are laughable, at best. This sign is a perfect allegory for that. The time, effort, and materials that went into those signs far outweighs the cost of water saved. How much do you think Lehigh is paying a bunch of long-haired professors to sit in a room and come up with ideas with this. Certainly the plastic and screws as well as the installation of the sign itself are also quite costly when compared to the cost of water (~$0.0015/gallon). Sure, Lehigh could afford it, but the money could be used elsewhere for better uses.

Finally, regarding your comment on showers at the gym being a privilege, what does it matter if people shower at the gym or at their dorm? The idea that they are a privilige, even at the gym, is silly. Point me to a gym, on a college campus or otherwise, that doesn’t provide showers. With these signs, Lehigh is paving the way to take away things that we have paid for in the past while still increasing costs. It is a shrewd business model, but as consumers of Lehigh’s service, we should resist such prospects not just for ourselves, but for future Lehigh students.

In the end we are just talking about a sign, sure. But rights or privileges shouldn’t be unnecessarily restricted on the basis of “protecting the environment.” Based on the sign, this seems to be Lehigh’s intention, which I feel is an error in judgment, and a questionable business practice.

Let’s take a look at the economics of the sign, shall we?

With no shopping around and the most expensive materials option, I obtained an 18″x24″ sign for $40.10, including shipping. Let’s assume a staggering $20 for parts and labor (damn unions!) on the installation, bringing the sign to $60.10. (http://www.buildasign.com/)

Pennsylvania American Water charges $0.5869/100gal for commercial use when use is over 16,000 gallons a month. Let’s assume Lehigh shops around, makes some deals, and somehow gets a tenth of that price, bringing us to $0.0005869/gal. (http://www.amwater.com/paaw/customer-service/rates-information.html)

Now, for the sign’s effectiveness. Say the message reaches (and has an effect on) a mere fifth of Lehigh’s population, making them cut their shower time by only 1 minute. Let’s call it 1,000 students, again being a little conservative. I hope by the end of this article, the sign’s effectiveness will receive a boost, but for now, that’s 1,000 minutes of shower saved per shower.

If Lehigh has not updated their shower heads in a few years, I’m told they will have a flow rate of roughly 5 gallons per minute. (http://www.hometips.com/cs-protected/guides/showerheads/whatis_lowflow.html)

Oh, let’s also assume that these students are masochists, and take their showers at whatever temperature the water comes out at (which is probably close to ground temperature, or 60 degrees around PA http://www.noritz.com/u/US_ground_temperature%5B1%5D.pdf)

Now, how long will it take to receive a return on investment for that sign?

1 * 5 * 1,000 * x * 0.0005869 >= $60.10 where x is the number of showers taken, which assuming these 1,000 students take one shower per day, equates to days.

Do the math, and you get… 21 days. In 21 days, under very conservative estimates, that sign will have paid for itself.

While this is nothing staggering or mind-blowing, what the sign and I are asking you to do is even less so – take a shorter shower.

Tom, I’ve got to respectfully disagree.

While I understand your point of view with regard to the economics of the sign, I think Mr. Mumma is taking greater issue with the tone of the sign.

Certainly, that’s where I find fault.

It’s one thing to erect a notice stating something along the lines of “We only get one earth. Protect it, and remember to conserve water,” or “Water is precious; please conserve,” etc. In fact, I fully support the efforts of conservationists to do just that – encourage better use of resources.

However, the sign doesn’t encourage. It insists, it demeans, it orders, it demands, and it most certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I liken the sign to a protestor – it makes me angry, and I almost want to work counter to its efforts just to spite it. Call me whatever you like, but that’s my gut reaction, and based on some of the commentary generated in this discussion, it would seem that others share my point of view.

Being told that my showering privileges might be revoked if I don’t follow a vague, gray standard of conservation is unsettling to me. I think of the drastic consequences a student at Lehigh receives for writing an off-color remark on a whiteboard: suspension, expulsion, a police record – hate crimes? All for words?

Lehigh has proven time and time again that it will will genuflect at the PC Pantheon when pressured by student activists, be they racial, or… green. And being that I am a paying customer at this fine institution, I second Mr. Mumma’s request that we reconsider the attitude and tone that the sign emits.

It doesn’t have to say “Pretty please with sugar on top turn off the fucking faucet,” but frankly, I’m very put off by the immature “Take shorter showers; they’re a privilege” verbiage.

So long as I’m forced, coerced, or pressured – not merely *asked* to capitulate to SustanabLehigh’s efforts, I will continue to preach against their offensive erections hand-in-hand with Ben & The Patriot.

Tom,
Thank you for your analysis of the economics of the sign. I would like to question a few of your assumptions though regarding the costs of the sign:

A. Another cost, which is indirect, is that Lehigh is paying the professors and administrators on LEAG to sit around and come up with ideas like this. I do not know whether they are paid extra for this activity as is common with other academic groups. However, even if they are not paid extra, there is still the opportunity cost to the University that those members in question could be doing something that is proven to bring value to the Lehigh: their jobs.

B. This is the sign in front of one of the shower areas in the gym. To my knowledge, there are at least three men’s locker rooms with showers in Taylor Gym, and presumably three women’s locker rooms as well. So to cover the entire showering population of Taylor Gym, six signs would be needed.

C. You assume that these signs will actually change people’s behavior in locker room showers, reducing average shower time by one minute per person. Certainly, this would make an interesting psychological experiment. However, I would argue that the net difference would be much smaller than one minute, and perhaps negligible. For my math, I’ll use 5 seconds, supposing 8-10% of college students actually change their behavior based on the sign.
The fact is many people probably have not yet noticed this sign, and many more will shower just as they always have. While I commend your belief that all college students are thoughtful, considerate, and obey all posted suggestions and warnings, I feel you may be out of touch with how students behave.

So, using my numbers, these signs will supposedly pay for themselves in 4 years, not 21 days, without taking into account the opportunity cost of having a bunch of academics getting paid to sit in a room and come up with a great idea like this one. Certainly, assumptions play a big role, but I would still argue that these signs are not cost efficient.