With all the talk about sustainability people think that means on a giant global scale. So with this thinking the masses don’t think they can make a dent and thus don’t try. But there is a simple thing you can do to help out the environment and save money on fertilizer. It is called composting and it is very easy to do. All you need is an open space outside in which to dump your organic waste like food, or any other natural item. I grew up on a farm and was exposed to many different fertilizers both natural and processed. I had noticed that the plants with the compost did as well if not better than the plants with store bought fertilizer. This makes the point that while store bought brand fertilizer is more convenient it is less economically sound than composting your old food, and it works just as well.
- Dominic
Editor’s Note: This post is one in a series published by students in the Sustainability Learning Community at KU. Additional posts from this series can be found under “LC” on the Categories list.
Growing up my best friend became a vegan in 4th grade. A vegan? What’s that? How could you have a lifestyle that doesn’t involve ice cream, cheesy pizza, or even baked cookies that contain eggs? When I was young me, along with many of my fellow classmates didn’t understand why someone would choose to not eat food that seemed to have absolutely nothing wrong with it, not to mention was deliciously scrumptious. My friend, as an animal lover, didn’t want to be a part of anything that hurt or imposed cruelty on any type or animal. Little did she know as a fourth grader that she was actually changing her lifestyle to act in one of the most effective ways to stop global warming and be environmentally friendly, which is to simply not eat meat.
Meat industries are one of the leading sources of the greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. In 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. Not to mention that raising animals for food is an incredible waste of resources. An area of rain forest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute to make room for grazing cattle, but each vegetarian saves 1 acre of trees every year. The raising of cattle for food leads to overgrazing of grasslands and deforestation is partially caused by the clearing of forest to grow feed for livestock. This land could be used to grow food for humans, an option that is better for the most people and much more sustainable. We waste food that we could feed to starving third world countries to feed livestock the livestock that sustains much smaller portion of people. About 20 percent of the world’s population, or 1.4 billion people, could be fed with the grain and soybeans fed to U.S. cattle alone.
If we could possibly solve world hunger through just a shift in eating habits, do you think people would go for the idea of giving up meat and fish, food that is part of every culture? Could America go for the idea of veggie burger barbeques? Would Japan be able to shift to no fish sushi? Maybe asking the world to become completely vegetarian is a bit of a stretch but I do think people being conscious of the amount of meat they eat or even just being conscious of the possible damage they are causing to the environment by supporting meat industries is a step in the right direction for creating a more sustainable, environmentally friendly world.
- Danielle
Editor’s Note: This post is one in a series published by students in the Sustainability Learning Community at KU. Additional posts from this series can be found under “LC” on the Categories list.
One misconception that I received from Debate in high school is that paper is cheap. I saw more paper wasted than I have seen trees. To prepare for speeches hundreds of articles were printed off from news sites by all teams from all schools. Most of these articles were never used because the process of obtaining them was random; we really did not pay attention to whether we truly needed them. However, I soon learned that this paper is not cheap; cutting down trees has many devastating impacts on the environment. By using recycling paper, we can cut down on deforestation; however, less than five percent of paper contains recycled fibers. Not to mention all of the paper industries emit the fourth-highest level of carbon dioxide among manufactures.
KU’s surveys have shown how much paper is used by staff and the amount of paper is required to be turned in by students. However, small steps can be made by not printing unnecessary items, such as syllabuses and research materials that can be saved and read on your computer, and to use double-sided printing when needed. Using a laptop is also an option for note taking. Always recycle any paper, and unlike the Debate teams, think before you print unnecessary items.
Super Shift: When paper is necessary, try purchasing recycled paper, it may actually work just fine, especially when the life of that paper will not be long. Try to decrease the amount of paper you use by fifty percent.
- Ashlee
Editor’s Note: This post is one in a series published by students in the Sustainability Learning Community at KU. Additional posts from this series can be found under “LC” on the Categories list.
Growing up my parents would always tell me about how windy it was in Kansas, they would say that the wind never stopped blowing, and I didn’t believe them until I moved here. I also hear that it is windy in Oklahoma, but they aren’t letting all of that good wind go to waste, they are using it to power the campus at the University of Oklahoma. Starting in 2013, 100 percent of the campus electricity will come from wind power. As of today, the university is already receiving 10 percent of its electricity from wind power.
Now I’m not from around here, but I’m pretty sure the saying goes “the wind comes sweeping down the plain” and Oklahoma is gathering all of the wind for their campus. The wind also sweeps across our plains and hills and The University of Kansas should be harnessing it for our own use. Our university is environmentally conscious, putting recycling bins around campus and going tray-less at the dining halls, but this stuff is a no brainer. We are in the part of the country where the wind, a renewable resource, is unlimited and the university should be taking advantage of this.
The University of Kansas is proud to be champions on and off the field, but now OU is winning in the fight for the environment. KU needs to step up to the plate and get serious about this fight.
- Keri
Editor’s Note: This post is one in a series published by students in the Sustainability Learning Community at KU. Additional posts from this series can be found under “LC” on the Categories list.
On October 9, KU participated in “Lights Out Across Campus”, a campaign encouraging faculty, staff, and students to shut off overhead lights and rely on the natural light streaming through the windows. In buildings where electricity use dropped for the day (compared to a day in September with similar weather), we saved 4,900 kWh of electricity, the energy equivalent of 15,327 bulbs burning for 10 hours.
When looking at a $12 million utility budget, the $300 saved by those buildings doesn’t seem like much. But add that up over the course of a year and get more people to participate, and we start to add some zeros behind that figure. And every little bit counts – not only for the power bills but for the planet.
Don’t want to sit around in the dark? You might be surprised just how much light you can get without flipping the switch. With the exception of a few rainy days in October, I get by just fine all year without a single overhead light. I have a lamp on my desk (with a CFL installed, by the way) that provides any light I need for reading, and if I move my chair closer to the window, I don’t even need that.
Give it a try and see what happens. Who knows, that pest down the hall may even think you are gone and leave you alone for a change!
Super Shift: Really?! What’s bigger than keeping the lights off all the time?
This morning when I got to work, I did something not everyone does: turned on my computer. Seems like a basic step for all of us to get started with our work day, right? But it is only necessary if you turned the computer OFF the night before. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case with computers at work or in our homes. Whether for reasons of convenience (are you really going to get that much done with an extra 30 seconds?) or concerns that turning the computer off and on is hard on the hard drive, we seem to think the computer needs to be on 24 hours a day.
Here at KU, shutting down is recommended in the list of conservation measures sent out each year by the Office of the Provost. It was even enough of a concern that the Governor of Kansas included a statement in her Executive Directive on Energy Conservation and Management calling for computers to be turned off any time they won’t be used for a period of 4 hours or more.
So why are we still leaving them on at night? I recently plugged my computer into a device that measures how much electricity is flowing through the power cord. With my monitor on, it was running about about 100 watts. So walking away from the computer without turning it off is like leaving a 100 watt lightbulb burning all day in the closet. You wouldn’t do that would you?
So try saying “goodnight” to the gigabytes before you leave work or before you go to bed. You’ll be amazed at how saving a little extra energy at night won’t even slow you down the next day. And the planet will thank you for the good night’s sleep.
Super Shift: Already giving your CPU some Zs? Try shutting down anytime you are going to be out of the office for more than an hour and change your power settings to turn the monitor off after 5 minutes of inactivity and the system to go into standby (or better yet hibernate) after 30 minutes.
We are bombarded by contradictory opinions about how much we must reduce emissions globally, on what time frame and what the worst case scenarios could be . The potential consequences of poor – or even worse – no planning for climate change and emissions reductions leaves many people with a sick feeling in their stomachs.
The enormous numbers and ambiguous statistics used to describe climate change are usually unfathomable to the average U.S. citizen. They may see the problem as a function of big coal plants or other large industry. This type of reaction can result in apathy and, no doubt, the feeling that we’re all headed to hell in hand-basket. One might assume that thinking about planning for climate change holistically may entangle us in complicated details and the problem would remain a Class A disaster; however, this may not be the case.
By approaching the problem of climate change from a holistic point-of-view, we can sort out details that are easier to visualize, accomplish and yes, even plan for in advance. Discovering what problems can be solved through which people, building partnerships, and finding ways to make the plan attractive to all stakeholders are all part of a holistic outlook that takes a more humanized scale to this enormous issue.
We can’t force people to work out solutions to emission reductions in their daily lives, but we can try to ascertain what makes the issue relevant to their work, family, etc. Climate planning does not rely solely on retooling policies and working collaboratively with resource managers, although these elements are one crucial aspect.
We must plan to utilize every human resource as well. People dislike being generalized, and a rubberstamp solution or “band-aid” approach is not the ultimate solution. Organization of climate plans that incorporate flexibility, evaluation and re-evaluation are also fundamental to this solution. We must instill in average citizens a change from the norm to a new norm that invites participation, evaluation and flexibility. We must focus our efforts on a holistic strategy that can be adapted to the creative solutions which are applicable to the average person and made relevant to their lives. This can come in many forms from transit oriented development to urban gardens to showers at work.
Being overwhelmed by the enormity of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a scary prospect for many. The best way we can plan for climate change is to take a holistic approach that emphasizes flexibility, partnerships and support.
As the “green” movement gains popularity more and more products are entering the market for green consumers. Although there are more organic options (yeah!), I am left wondering if consumers will be able to really understand the concept of environmental responsibility and sustainability. There are several key problems that leave me questioning my purchases and ultimately making judgment calls that leave me feeling conflicted about items that are organic and/or local, and consumerism in general.
An apple may be organic, so many buyers, including myself, believe we are making a responsible choice in promoting the market for organic food options. However, in most cases there is no label identifying where the apple came from, or how it was transported. In light of the principles of sustainability, one way to alleviate this conflict is to think about the three common elements that are often associated with sustainability. Organic is environmentally more sound, local helps my community and economically both organic and local make the most sense. Often local farmers are not financially able to be USDA certified even though they may practice very environmentally sound production methods. Plus the non-local organic option isn’t as environmentally sound if one thinks about the emissions and other externalities resulting from long distance travel.
It may seem like a lot to think about just for an apple, but follow me in this thought process for anything we purchase. Topping this conflict of purchasing the best more affordable product, is the 500 pound gorilla in the room: good-old-fashioned-American-mass-unchecked-consumerism (dare I say, greed). America’s consumption patterns although filthy delicious fun, are at the core of the problems that have led us to our current situation with climate change, social inequity and economic stimulus checks.
It’s great there is a large market for “green” and organic, but for me, my community produce and other goods and services are more important and in my humble opinion more sustainable, even if they don’t have the all hailed “USDA Certified Organic” labeling or other green (often misleading) designations. I think by building a stronger community of local producers, we can be more independent of the impending oil crisis, reduce our ecological footprint and lead the way to a more sustainable future. So as we are bombarded with the mega-market pushing us all to “go green,” (ie buy because it’s green…not necessarily because we need it) let’s remember some of the basic tenents that will help sustain our community as well as our well-being AND keep our consumerist appetites in check.
- Steph
Editors Note: For more information on responsible purchasing, visit the Center for Sustainability “Living Green in Lawrence” guide.
Whether making a presentation on campus or explaining to family members what it is that I actually do for a living, one of the questions I am asked most frequently is “What does ’sustainability’ mean anyway?” If I can remember it on the spot, I’ll spew out the oft-quoted definition of sustainable development from the Brundtland Report:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
But that usually just leads to more questions, and sometimes more confusion. And it’s one of those dry definition that I don’t think quite does the term justice.
Although I’m generally not one to answer a question with a question, I often catch myself ditching the canned response and firing back: “What does it mean to you?” In the process, I’ve learned a lot about this all-encompassing term. To some it is about saving the planet from the perils of global climate change. To others it is about eating local, organic, and low on the food chain or protecting themselves and their families from the various toxins that can turn up in everything from deodorant to drinking water. Still others define sustainability as simply being part of a community and paying attention to personal relationships.
So what do I think it means? I used to spout off another textbook definition describing sustainability as the intersection of the the 3E’s – environment, economy, and equity (or equality). But I tend to see it more as the 3R’s (and I don’t just mean Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). For me It is about having RESPECT each other and our planet, taking RESPONSIBILITY for our own actions (and making responsible choices in everything we do), and understanding the many RELATIONSHIPS that take place in nature and society. If we can keep those three things in mind, I think we should all be in pretty good shape.
If you still aren’t sure what ’sustainability’ means, you are not alone. Just ask these people:
The rest of the story – and some possible examples of sustainability – can be found on the Sustainable Lawrence blog. But before you let anyone else tell you what they think, be sure to ask yourself what ’sustainability’ means to you.
Author’s Note: This is the first in a series of “Sustainability Shifts” , challenging members of the campus community to make small changes towards more sustainable living – and share their experiences online.
Summer is on its way which means sunshine, swimming pools, and spending time outside. It also means working up a sweat walking to the office or even strolling down an un-air-conditioned hallway. To cool off in your cubicle, nothing says refreshment like a icy drink of H2O. But before you reach for a bottle of water, think about the environmental impact of that plastic beverage container.
Bottled water is far from being sustainable. For starters, plastic is made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. Currently we use about 1.5 million barrels a year to make disposable bottles, and that doesn’t include all the fossil fuels involved in shipping that water to local stores. Once the bottle is emptied, it is likely to end up in a landfill. Despite efforts to recycle at KU, less than 25% of plastic bottles are being recycled in the US. Even when they are recycled, they can’t be made into new plastic bottles but are “down-cycled” into other materials that may eventually end up in the garbage. To add insult to injury, the water in that eco-enemy probably isn’t much different than what comes out of the tap.
Image: “Plastic Bottles, 2007″ by Chris Jordan depicts the 2 million plastic bottles used in the US every 5 minutes.
A simple solution: bring your own bottle. For what you spend on water in less than a month’s time, you can buy a good reusable bottle or two and fill it up at the tap. (If you are not a fan of the flavor of the water at work, use a filtered pitcher or bring it from home.) The water from your faucet is much cheaper, it is produced locally here in Lawrence, and the process cuts down on the use of fossil fuels.
One note: With the recent hype about plastics that contain a chemical similar to the hormone estrogen, it may be best to opt for aluminum or stainless steel bottles. You can get these online and at sporting goods stores, and I’ve even seen them in the health food section of my local grocery store. You can also get plastic bottles made of HDPE plastic which doesn’t contain BPA – they are the ones that look more like the plastic used to make milk jugs.
So try to put a personal ban on bottled water. You may be surprised to see how much you save…beyond just the environment.
Super Shift:Already bringing your own bottle for water? Try not to buy ANY beverages in plastic bottles. Aluminum cans are easily recycled and can be back on the shelf as new cans in as little as 60 days. Do you really need 20 ounces of soda, anyway? You can even buy milk in returnable glass bottles at local grocery stores.
