Make a Change and Make a Difference

Thomas Friedman has been a champion for the environmental cause over the last several years. And likewise with his last New York Times opinion piece he cites a friend’s short essay on how we as citizens in a fragile world should use the BP oil spill to change the way we live — the way we consume our energy.  He says it with such an understandable and  straightforward zeal that we cannot ignore the problem and must consider that we are bound by our own actions:

“We need to make our whole country more sustainable. So let’s pass an energy-climate bill that really reduces our dependence on Middle East oil. Let’s pass a financial regulatory reform bill that really reduces the odds of another banking crisis. Let’s get our fiscal house in order, as the economy recovers. And let’s pass an immigration bill that will enable us to attract the world’s top talent and remain the world’s leader in innovation.”

We CANNOT waste the precious time we have. We need to learn to work together for the good of the entire world, and if that is not possible then at least for the good of the citizens of the United States. Currently, we seem to lack the ability to take bold actions that could save the lives of our children (or future children) and reduce the burden that may now rest on all future generations. We discount the future because we live in the present, but we must understand when looking at our kids, our brothers and sisters, or our friends that the future holds for all of us an uncertainty capable of dessimating our lives. That is why, as Friedman reminds us again and again, that “we have to solve the big problems in our control, not postpone them or pretend that more lobby-driven, lowest-common-denominator solutions are still satisfactory.”

In a recent personal experiment I traveled around Lawrence, KS without using my car. Getting around was easy, although a bit more time consuming, but altogether enlightening and beneficial. Now a week later, I have thrown away my parking pass, sold my jeep, and have pledged to travel using my feet, or with the help of a bus, anywhere and everywhere I go.

Of course, working for the KU Center for Sustainability influenced my decision to become more sustainable. Although I am a research assistant for the CFS, I certainly am not required to leave my personal vehicle behind. But because of the time I have spent at the center, I more clearly understand that the energy I consume every day, although seemingly personal, affects everyone else around me. I did not directly cause the Gulf oil spill, but I certainly contributed to (or fell victim to) the culture that enabled such a catastrophe to happen.

Beyond just this blog, the KU Center for Sustainability has done some wonderful things for the KU community. Jeff Severin has spearheaded initiatives to create a sustainable raingarden, encourage student engineered sustainable projects, and educate students, staff, and faculty about how they can be more sustainable among other things. In addition, we should all stand behind future green initiatives as each and every project will benefit the environment — the air, water, and wildlife — and will enrich our lives by conserving what natural resources we have left for our future and the following generation.

I am not telling you to sell your car and walk everywhere, although it is entirely conceivable, I just want you to do something — anything — that would make you more sustainable each day. Because clearly, with the mess that is spreading before our eyes, we need to take action to prevent future disasters. So, “[h]ere’s the bottom line: If we want to end our oil addiction, we, as citizens, need to pony up: bike to work, plant a garden, do something. So again, the oil spill is my fault. I’m sorry.”

A Week Without a Car

I began this personal experiment on Monday May 24, 2010. I kept track of where I drove, how long I was in the car, and how much gas I used last week. This week I am going to abstain from driving my Jeep in order to travel around Lawrence, KS on foot, by bicycle, and Public Transit and compare my travel costs to driving. At the end of this period, taking into account the costs of time, damage to the environment, and the cost and maintenance of a vehicle, I will report on the most cost-effective form of transportation for someone in my particular situation.  

 My interest in this personal case study is four-fold:   

 1.  Changing our transportation habits, if even for a week, can be a very beneficial experience. Sometimes, the hardest part of changing a habit is making that first step. This is my first step.  

 2.  I will show our readers that there are easy ways to get around Lawrence that can contribute to a student’s decision to leave his or her car at home. While I may end up traveling around Lawrence less, my activities will not change drastically.  

 3.  I currently lead a healthy lifestyle, but riding a bicycle or walking to work multiple times a week will contribute to my overall health.  

 4.  If the University of Kansas hopes to become a more innovative and vibrant campus, then it is time for us to prioritize commuter behavior.  My hope is that this project will demonstrate that need and how we can address it as a campus.  

Monday, May 31, 2010, Day one without a car:  Memorial Day

I rode a bicycle 3.7 miles to campus from my home. I know it was Memorial Day but I decided that I should not take a day off from commuting especially if I wanted to reach the same distances as the week I drove to work and back. While Google Maps says it should only have taken me 20 minutes from point A to point B, it took me 30 minutes. Most of the distance covered was on flat terrain but riding up the hill on the way to campus took a little extra effort and determination, which many of the comments in the survey responses cited as a large deterrent. However, that same hill that works against you on the way to campus helps you tremendously on the way back home — it took me less than 20 minutes to get back. In addition to the comments about the hill, other survey responses added time, distance, inability to carry materials, and sweatiness to the list of negatives for biking to work or school. However, I rode 3.7 miles which, according to the May 26 post about distance, is at the outer limits of distance contributing to the likeliness that someone will bike. I was able to carry my wallet, keys, cellphone and a change of clothes in a basket on the back of my bike with relative ease and I didn’t even have to change when I got the work because the wind kept me dry. Overall, it was a great experience. But what about the rest of the campus population?

Bicycle ownership for the KU campus is approximately 60% for faculty and staff members and 45% for students. The survey results reflect a national trend in that while a large percentage of the campus population owns a bicycle, very few regularly ride it. 62% of commuters reported that the weather was a factor in their decision to ride a bicycle to campus. However the University can introduce changes that affect a riders ease of use and time spent commuting. Nearly 40% of all survey respondents indicated that they would be more likely to ride a bicycle to campus if there were clearly marked bike lanes on and off campus. Considering that nearly all bicycle riders live within 2.5 miles of campus, the University should consider working with the city to change the transportation environment within a close radius of campus that would separate bike riders and pedestrians from automobile traffic. Currently, the transportation system does not promote adequate safety for non-motorized travelers.

Daily Totals:   

Bike time – 50 minutes (50 total)   

Distance covered – 7.4 miles (7.4 total)   

Estimated gallons used — 0 (0 total)

Tuesday, June 1, 2010, Day two without a car:  94 degrees of heat and walking

In Kansas, we have this thing called weather. One day it is 65 degrees and overcast, then the next day it is 20 and snowing, and 3 days later it is 89 with a heat index of 94 degrees. Ok, so it is not quite that bad but the weather in Kansas changes quickly and often. On tuesday, it was 94 degrees counting humidity and I decided to leave the bike at home and walk the 3.7 miles to work. I thought, “hey, to better understand my commuting choices, I should try them all!” Well, walking, while always enjoyable and good for the heart and legs, left me a little tired and sore at the end of the day. But, I believe the more I walk  the easier it will get each time. When comparing the walk to the bike ride the day before, I realize how much more convenient and easy it is to pedal around — covering more ground quickly while the wind keeps you cool — and how walking long distances can be daunting to most people.

A Harvard Medical School about Leisure Time Exercise spells out some findings about walking for exercise:

Walking. Because it’s the dominant form of exercise, it has attracted the most attention from researchers. Studies from around the world agree that a little walking can go a long way toward keeping you healthy. Here are some typical results:

• A 12-year study of 707 retired men in Hawaii found that the death rate of men who walked at least 2 miles a day was more than 50% lower than that of men who walked less than a mile a day.
• A study of Harvard alumni found that men who walked more than 7 miles a week had a 33% lower death rate than sedentary men. Walking up stairs was nearly as good; men who averaged about 8 flights a day reduced their death rate by 25%.
• A 4-year study of 1,645 men and women over 65 found that people who walked at least 4 hours a week enjoyed a 31% lower risk of death than those who walked less than an hour a week.
• A Harvard study of 72,488 female nurses found that walking for 3 hours a week reduced the risk of heart attacks by a third, or exactly as much as 1½ hours of intense exercise. And a companion study of 61,200 nurses linked regular walking to a 55% reduction in the risk of hip fractures.
• A Harvard study of 39,372 professional women found that walking for just an hour a week cut the risk of heart attack by half. Women who increased their weekly mileage enjoyed additional benefits, but women who accelerated their pace did not.

The percentage of the KU campus population that walks is largely correlated with the percentage who ride bicycles. Many of the institution changes to encourage biking would also work to increase the population that walks. The survey results show that approximately 13% of faculty, staff, and students walk to campus, nearly all of whom live within 1 mile. A strong clustering of students living on and close to campus both encourages and significantly increases the likeliness that they walk. If the University wants to promote pedestrian and bike travel, the campus master plan should prioritize convenient and safe non-vehicle access to campus.

Daily Totals:   

Bike time – 50 minutes (50 total)   

Bike distance covered – 7.4 miles (7.4 total)

Walk time — 118 minutes (118 total)

Walk distance covered — 7.4 miles (7.4 total)

Estimated gallons used — 0 (0 total)

Wednesday, June 2, 2010, Day three without a car:  Bike lanes needed, please

I decided to ride my again on Wednesday but this time I wanted to take a different route than I did on Monday. I remember seeing bike lane markers while driving North on Naismith drive towards 19th street. Since they were the only bike lanes I have seen in Lawrence, I decided to use them (pictures to be posted soon). According to Bicycle.com’s America’s Top 50 Bike-Friendly Cities, Minneapolis Minnesota ranks #1. Of the top 10, Boulder Colorado most closely resembles Lawrence Kansas in size, demographic, and college town feel. According to information I found on Wikipedia, Boulder, well-known for its bicycle culture, boasts hundreds of miles of bike paths, lanes, and routes that interconnect to create a renowned network of bikeways usable year-round. Boulder has 74 bike and pedestrian underpasses that facilitate safer and uninterrupted travel throughout much of the city. The city offers a route-finding website that allows users to map personalized bike routes around the city. In 2008 the city was recognized by the League of American Bicyclists as a Platinum-level bicycle friendly community. Lawrence should strive to be as vibrant of a community as Boulder — one way to get there is improving the transportation infrastructure. And unlike Lawrence bus routes, Boulder bus routes run throughout the city and connect to nearby communities on a frequent basis, with departures every ten minutes during peak hours, Monday-Friday (I will write about Lawrence Public Transit tomorrow).

Only after riding North on Naismith over the bike lane markers did I look up some bicycling information and frequently asked questions on the City of Lawrence Website. These “bike lanes” on Naismith are only proposed for future construction and are therefore not actually bike lanes at all.  This explains the select few motor vehicles that honked at me while passing by as if I was doing something wrong. In addition, there is no sidewalk on the North-bound side of the street, only a well-beaten path where a sidewalk should be. The Lawrence website provides a color-coded Bicycle Facilities Map that provides information on all existing and projected future bike lanes and paths. In addition to my normal trip to and from work, I also went to the grocery store near my house and was able to balance a bag on each side of my handle bars for the trip home. It turned out to be really easy to get all the groceries I would need for the week in one 20 minute bike ride.

Yesterday I posted some of the benefits of walking to human health. Today, using the eloquent words of Bicyclinginfo.org, I would like to leave you with some benefits of biking: “The positive consequences of biking as a healthy mode of transportation, or as a purely recreational activity, span across many aspects of our lives. They can be expressed in terms of the health of the environment (and resulting health of all living things), as well as the health of individuals who are more physically active. A transportation system that is conducive to bicycling can reap many benefits in terms of reduced traffic congestion and improved quality of life. Economic rewards both to the individual and to society are also realized through reduced health care costs and reduced dependency on auto ownership (and the resulting insurance and maintenance costs). There are also other economic benefits of bicycling that are more difficult to measure, such as the increased economic vitality of communities that have emphasized bicycle mobility. Finally, bikeable communities create a more equitable society that provides transportation choice for all citizens.”

Daily Totals:   

Bike time – 65 minutes (115 total)   

Bike distance covered – 9.6 miles (17 total)

Walk time — 118 minutes (118 total)

Walk distance covered — 7.4 miles (7.4 total)

Estimated gallons used — 0 (0 total)

Thursday, June 3, 2010, Day four without a car: Scheduling your time well makes all the difference

The hardest part about riding the bus is getting on it for the first time. Coordinating your schedule around bus arrivals and departures constrains your freedom — a freedom acquired through the use of a car. But parking, traffic congestion, and the cost of gasoline work against your commute as well. Out of the days I have spent carless, the day I spent riding the bus for the first time was the most eye-opening for me. Let’s describe the scene:

With 24 people riding the bus at its peak time, people were sleeping, reading, talking to one another; two professors exchanged contact information and discussed their research. Staff members interacted with students while other riders just sat quietly. The girl next to mean was reading “princicples of mathematical analysis” — a class that I took last year which still makes me cringe. People, faculty students and staff alike, got off the bus two or three at a time as the bus moved farther and farther from campus but no one got on. A silence enveloped the bus as our numbers dwindled, each of us waiting patiently for our stops. As I stepped off the bus, said goodbye to the driver, I began walking the 15 minute half-mile home, taking in the sun as it slowly fell.

Initially, I was frustrated with the busing system. However, the annoyance was the result of my own poor scheduling. I left my house too early, walked to a bus stop that was farther away than I thought, and waited 30 minutes for the bus. Removing that error, focusing only on the remaining time traveling, the bus ride was actually quite enjoyable. With air conditioning, time to read and write, I realized that riding mass transit has many advantage over walking and riding a bike. I didn’t arrive sweaty or winded, and I stepped off the bus only a 100 yard walk from my office — closer than if I had to park my car! IF you want to plan your own trip around Lawrence just go to the Lawrence Transit website.

Students, faculty, and staff are already given free access to the bus system; however additional improvements to the KU transit service can significantly increase ridership by the campus population. The busing system is designed to provide the option of riding the bus to the maximum number of possible users. But, as shown in the survey data results, even though much of the population is willing and able, most people who have any other transportation option choose to use that option over riding the bus system. Students, faculty, and staff alike want the bus system to have certain characteristics:

• Routes that go where people want to go
• High frequencies
• Long service hours
• Fast and direct routes

Based on the preferences indicated in the Sustainable Transportation survey results, the bus system has the most potential to provide a quality source of alternative transportation for all commuters to campus. Only 20% of students responded that they would not ride the bus more often. The remaining 80% indicated that at least one improvement suggested would get them to ride the bus more often. Only 40% of faculty and 36% of staff members stated that they were not likely to ride the bus more often. An increase in bus ridership would significantly reduce the University’s greenhouse gas emissions if riders left their personal vehicles at home and climbed on a bus more often. Based on the survey results discussed in some of the previous posts, the University should encourage pedestrian travel within one mile, bike riding within 2.5 miles, and university campus planners should develop specific strategies to strengthen the bus system to encourage ridership within 5 miles of campus.

Daily Totals:   

Bike time – 45 minutes (160 total)   

Bike distance covered – 6.4 miles (23.4 total)

Walk time — 15 minutes (133 total)

Walk distance covered — 1.0 miles (8.4 total)

Bus time —  120 minutes (120 total)

Bus distance covered — 8 miles (8 total)

Estimated personal vehicle gallons used — 0 (0 total)

Friday, June 4, 2010, Day five without a car: Kansas City, Easy

On the final day of this personal experiment I decided travel to Kansas City, MO to visit a friend who had just arrived for a summer internship. Of course, sticking to my pledge of going absolutely carless for the week, I elected to take the K-10 Connector from the KU campus after work. This bus is mainly used by commuters who may live and work in Kansas City but need an easy way to travel to Lawrence and back for classes or other activities. The bus makes trips back and forth from KU to the Johnson County Community College stop where it meets up with the rest of the transit system. It only runs on weekdays but makes evening/late night runs Monday through Thursday. I walked from my office down the hill to the bus stop, stood in the shade for about 15 minutes until the bus arrived — early — and then rode on a series of three buses until I stepped off the bus into the Plaza District in KC. Normally I would have driven about 55 minutes from my home in Lawrence, but instead the bus ride took me a little over 2 hours in total. However, not having to concentrate on driving allowed me to read 3 chapters of Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash. Here are the totals for my week:

Totals for the Week: 100.8 miles, 623 minutes, 0 gallons

Bike time –160 minutes 

Bike distance covered – 23.4 miles

Walk time — 163 minutes

Walk distance covered –10.4 miles

Bus time —  300 minutes

Bus distance covered — 67 miles

Estimated personal vehicle gallons used — 0

Compared to last week when I kept track of my driving totals — 231 minutes, 62.8 miles, and 4.1 gallons of gas — I covered 100.8 miles using alternative transportation, 38 more than driving, but I spent 623 minutes traveling, nearly 400 minutes more than last week. In addition, I spent 10 dollars on gas last week but I spent 7 dollars on the bus ride to Kansas City — up until that ride I hadn’t spent any money on traveling, it had been completely free. Although it took more time than driving, getting around using alternative modes of transportation was both easy and liberating simply because I now know that I am not chained to my car. Actually, I am disappointed in myself for the fact that throughout my 2 years here as a graduate student I did not use the bus or ride a bike nearly enough. It is not right for me to preach to people about being more sustainable when I am not practicing sustainable habits. So, I am going to continue leaving my car at home and walking, biking, or riding the bus will be an everyday day activity for me.

Traveling around Lawrence by foot, bike and bus is both easy and beneficial to one’s health and the environment.

A Personal Transportation Experiment

Here’s the deal:  

 I will drive to work every day this week, keeping track of my mileage, time, and gasoline consumption along the way. Next week, I will use as many forms of alternative transportation as are available to me — biking, walking, and riding the bus — and compare my travel costs to driving. At the end of this period, taking into account the costs of time, damage to the environment, and the cost and maintenance of a vehicle, I should be able to report on the most cost-effective form of transportation for someone in my particular situation.  

 My interest in this personal case study is four-fold:   

 1.  Changing our transportation habits, if even for a week, can be a very beneficial experience. Sometimes, the hardest part of changing a habit is making that first step. This is my first step.  

 2.  I will show our readers that there are easy ways to get around Lawrence that can contribute to a student’s decision to leave his or her car at home. While I may end up traveling around Lawrence less, my activities will not change drastically.  

 3.  I currently lead a healthy lifestyle, but riding a bicycle or walking to work multiple times a week will contribute to my overall health.  

 4.  If the University of Kansas hopes to become a more innovative and vibrant campus, then it is time for us to prioritize commuter behavior.  My hope is that this project will demonstrate that need and how we can address it as a campus.  

   

Monday, May 24, 2010, Day one: Driving the old Jeep   

The Center for Sustainability surveyed 522 KU commuters about the make, model, and year of vehicle they drive to campus. Out of the model years received in response, I drive the oldest vehicle recorded, with a manufacturing date of 1985 — older than a majority of students currently attending KU. I suppose I am hypocritical for preaching sustainability and owning an inefficient vehicle. So, I will be selling the Jeep at the end of July. But for now, it remains a useful tool in this experiment.   

To begin the day, driving my inefficient Jeep, I took the usual route from my Lawrence home to the Center for Sustainability in Carruth-O’Leary Hall on the KU Campus. After work, with an interest in exploring the bike shop on Massachusetts Street and a hunger for a burrito, I drove downtown and spent an hour in the heat and humidity of the sporadic spring weather. After asking questions about the new “fixie” bicycling fad and enjoying a chicken burrito, I drove straight home.   

Daily Totals:

Drive time — 37 minutes   

Distance covered — 10.4 miles   

Estimated gallons used — 0.6   

Tuesday, May 25, 2010, Day Two: Another day in the life   

Using the Sustainable Transportation Survey, the same survey mentioned above, we gathered information about KU affiliates who commute to and from campus. One of the questions we asked read as the following: “Do you own a personal vehicle and use it to get to the University of Kansas campus?” According to the responses, between 85 and 90% of faculty and staff members own a personal vehicle that they use to get to campus, while less than 60% of students 

Table 1: Average Commuter Vehicle
Commuter Type	Model Year	MPG
Faculty	2004.0	26.7
Staff	2001.8	24.3
Student	2001.8	23.0

own a personal vehicle that they use to get to campus. We asked each respondent who reported a personal vehicle to provide the year, make, and model of their vehicle; we then looked up the EPA estimated miles per gallon rating based on that information. We found that faculty members, staff members, and students drive vehicles with an average combined MPG rating of 26.7, 24.3, and 23.0, respectively. Although we did not gather data on annual income, we suspect that the differences are related to the stratification of socioeconomic status where faculty members can afford to purchase newer and more fuel-efficient vehicles whereas students drive less expensive, older modeled, more inefficient vehicles.   

As you can see from the description and picture of my Jeep above, I do not drive an efficient vehicle. While the average MPG for students is 23, my Jeep gets a measly 18 MPG. The only redeeming quality of the vehicle is that with four wheel drive capability I will never get stuck — as if that is a problem in Kansas. On Tuesday, I drove to work in the morning on paved roads, gently avoiding potholes along the way, having no need to put the Jeep in off-road mode. After work, I drove home to change (having forgotten to bring gym clothes to work) and drove back to campus to work out at the Ambler Student Recreation Facility. After several games of basketball, I promptly returned home.   

Daily Totals:   

Drive time — 48 minutes (85 total)   

Distance covered — 13.6 miles (24 total)   

Estimated gallons used — 0.8 (1.4 total)   

Wednesday, May 26, 2010, Day Three:  Distance Matters   

If I lived closer to campus, I would walk to work every day. But, as it turns out, I live just outside what I would consider a comfortable walking distance. So, I drive. Using the survey data, we were able to calculate the probability that a commuter travels by a specific mode of transportation depending on his or her distance from campus. I live 3.6 miles from campus. At that distance, given how the Lawrence transportation system is currently structured, a commuter has a 60% likeliness of choosing to drive to campus over all other forms of travel.  In Figure 1, looking at only student responses and truncating the data to include only commuters who live inside or very close to Lawrence, we observe that within a 2 mile radius a student commuter is 1.5 to 2 times more likely to travel to campus by an alternative mode of transportation over driving a personal vehicle. In addition, within a ½-mile, student commuters rely on the busing system and their own two feet to get to campus each at a higher rate than driving. However, driving becomes the most used form of transportation for students at approximately 2 miles from campus. The University needs to focus on transportation initiatives that extend the radius of effective alternative transportation. Knowing all of this information and understanding that I can move closer to campus once my lease runs out, I will choose to live within a comfortable walking distance, possibly saving time and money by commuting with my own two feet.   

However, as laid out by the rules of this experiment I drove the 3.6 miles to work again, wrote a blog post, and continued other research all the while contemplating how I will survive commuting without a car next week. I am sure I will be fine.   

Daily Totals:   

Drive time — 30 minutes (115 total)   

Distance covered — 7.2 miles (31.2 total)   

Estimated gallons used — 0.5 (2.0 total)  

Thursday, May 27, 2010, Day four:  A more sustainable campus  

The heavy reliance on personal vehicles as a main mode of transportation has serious impacts for the environment and contributes greatly to the University’s GHGs. Universities are in a unique position to both study and address the challenge of mitigating the impact of GHGs. We can be a model for other educational institutions and influence the surrounding community to be more environmentally conscious. The CFS seeks to reduce the University’s dependence on the personal vehicle by first understanding the underlying factors that contribute to its use then encouraging the use of alternative transportation such as biking, riding the bus, and walking.  

The automobile revolutionized transportation. But now many people are questioning the excessive romanticism of the open road and the wisdom of a strongly car dependent society. The University of Kansas has been shaped by the use of personal vehicles. The Lawrence Campus, consisting of the Main and West sections of campus, covers 870.1 acres, or approximately 37,901,556 square feet. If we take into account the surface areas of campus that relate directly to motor vehicles, mainly parking lots and streets, we find that approximately 7,126,587 square feet or 18.8% of the Lawrence Campus is paved over so that commuters can drive and park there.  

Now, imagine a campus without cars. We would rely on other modes of transportation to get from classroom to classroom. We would interact more with other people having to sit across from them on the bus rather than pass each of them by in the isolation of our personal vehicle. The population would be healthier, more vibrant, and more energetic having had to walk to work or class, leaving the sedentary life-style behind in their wake. Not only would our campus breathe more freely, it would be a model for a more sustainable community.  

Now, I understand the need for a car sometimes. I have to commute to the Kansas City area often without a more efficient option than using my car, but for traveling locally a personal vehicle is not necessary. Today, I ran a few errands after work including a stop at the local Target store in addition to going to the gym again to play basketball.  

Daily Totals:   

 Drive time — 68 minutes (183 total)     

Distance covered – 18.0 miles (49.2 total)   

 Estimated gallons used – 1.1 (3.1 total)  

Friday, May 28, 2010, Day five:  Hidden costs  

For one question in the Sustainable Transportation Survey we asked commuters to estimate the average total cost of gas, maintenance, insurance, and parking per semester. Students and faculty each averaged approximately $760 per year whereas staff reported an average cost of $860. I have spent nearly $700 dollars on repairs to my car in the last 2 years. Add that to insurance (340 per year), a parking pass (200 per year), and gasoline (1800 per year) – I have spent over $5000 (not including the original cost of the car or depreciation thereafter) over the last 2 years on things that relate to my vehicle. So, given all of the commuter responses to the question above, do you think people have a good grasp on the actual cost of owning and operating a car?  

                According to the Edmunds.com’s “True Cost To Own Calculator”, a 2005 Chevrolet Impala cost over $27,000 to own and operate over the last 5 years – coming to over $5000 dollars per year. The costs of ownership are not quite hidden – they are just overlooked by consumers.  

Daily Totals:   

 Drive time — 48 minutes (231 total)     

Distance covered – 13.6 miles (62.8 total)   

 Estimated gallons used – 1.0 (4.1 total) 

The end of the week and I have traveled only 63 miles on the road in 230 minutes. Monday (Memorial Day) will begin my week of traveling without a car. Hopefully I will travel as many miles using a bike, walking, and riding the bus.

Sustaining Education

Note: This is the 2nd post in a series on the role of sustainability in higher education.

In March, I wrote about integrating sustainability into our operations, the first step many think of when we talk about sustainability in higher education.  But that only opens the door for the next step – and probably the most impactful.  It is the very reason our institutions exist: education.  Highlighting the efforts made in operations presents an opportunity to educate the campus community – students, staff, and faculty alike – about sustainability.  For example the Multicultural Resource Center at the University of Kansas has a brochure in their waiting area detailing their efforts to recycle and reduce resource use, and offering suggestions for how visitors can help reduce their impact.  It also includes a reminder to return or recycle the brochure when finished.

On a more sophisticated level, campuses are using touch screens and online tools to share information about green building features and energy conservation.  Oberlin College in Ohio provides one example of how this can be used to raise awareness and build support for initiatives.  Often cited as one of the greenest schools in the US, Oberlin has a number of buildings connected to their online monitoring system, providing real-time data on energy consumption.

Efforts like this help raise awareness about issues of sustainability – a quick what, where and sometimes why – which I think is really the first step for a lot of us.  But that needs to be extended into the classroom.  The main focus of the Center for Sustainability is to help integrate sustainability into all aspects of campus, including the curriculum. Last year we partnered with our Center for Teaching Excellence to create a working group that involved faculty from architecture, engineering, ecology, geology, physics, planning, psychology, and public administration, all brought together to determine how best to accomplish this.  Although the logistics of creating even an introductory course in sustainability are challenging – it turns out interdisciplinary education isn’t that easy to accomplish in our current system – there were a few things that everyone agreed on: a basic course needs to introduce students to concepts of sustainability from a multidisciplinary approach and be based around a real-world problem to engage students in the process and help show them how their area of study contributes to advancing sustainability.

A similar concept has been used for a course at Oakland Community College in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan for the past few years.  Students involved in the project are put into teams with 3 or 4 students from each of 3 disciplines, then asked to create a positive scenario for the future of society that is more humane and environmentally sustainable. Throughout the project, they must integrate key concepts from their own discipline.

Are graduates prepared to carry the burden of creating a more sustainable future? Source: National Association of Scholars

There are many great examples of integrating sustainability into the curriculum on a much broader scale than just one course.  A number of institutions now offer degrees or certification programs in sustainability or have introductory courses aimed at creating a sustainability literate student population.  There are also programs that are working to infuse sustainability throughout the curriculum – not just in one program, but across all disciplines.

Projects like this really get at what I see is a key element in sustainability education.  It isn’t just WHAT we teach students, but HOW.  I currently serve as a board member for the Kansas Association for Conservation and Environmental Education, and have long admired their approach to environmental education.  Their mission is to promote and provide “effective, non-biased and science-based environmental education to all Kansans”.  KACEE works mainly with K-12 educators, providing training and support for teachers who want to engage their students in inquiry based learning and outdoor experiences.  Their goal is to teach students how to think about environmental challenges, not what to think.

Prior to working at KU, I spent a few years in informal environmental education, and I come from a family of educators – my father is a superintendent of schools, one sister is an elementary teacher, the other  is a physical therapist for a school district, and my mother is a recently retired special education para-professional.  So, clearly I remain very connected and involved with K-12 education and have a deep respect for educators at all levels.  Unfortunately I am too often reminded of a comment made by a colleague a few years ago: he noted that our education system spends too much time training students to fill a niche and not enough time preparing them to create their own.   That truly concerns me as education for sustainability is not about cranking out students who can fit into a specific place in society, but about preparing students to figure out how all those places fit together to create a better future.

As KU graduates march down the hill and into the “real world” this spring, I can’t help wondering if they are truly prepared for what they are about to face.  Are they aware of the complexities of the natural systems they are part of?  Do they understand how their disciplines relate to and complement each other?  Are they ready to take on the challenge of global climate change and start building a more sustainable future?  This generation may be burdened with the job of taking on these environmental problems, but it is our job as institutions of higher education to ready them for that important task.

– Jeff

Agriculture’s Role in Climate Change

According to this New York Times blog post, the cattle feed provided for the 1.5 million cows located in the Central Valley of California has been linked to the considerably poor air quality that settles over the area. I was a student in the Central Valley for 4 years before coming to the University of Kansas and experienced this pollution first hand. Who would have thought that tail-pipe emissions are not as detrimental to local air quality as are the chemicals released by cattle feed?

I come from a farming background (revealed in greater detail here) and my family runs a Western Nebraska farm corporation. I share this example because while the agricultural industry is not often considered a significant polluter, farming communities will have a huge stake in the upcoming climate change legislation debate. According to the EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report in 2008, the agricultural sector was responsible for emissions of 427.5 teragrams of CO2 equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.), or 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The fact that cattle feed is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions has a major impact on the State of Kansas.  At the beginning of 2006, Kansas was ranked second behind Texas in total cattle numbers with 6.6 million total head of cattle. Sixteen of the 25 largest cattle feeders in the U.S. have facilities in Kansas and represent a major market for Kansas feed grains. The financial well-being of Kansas citizens is critically dependent upon the profitability and growth of the beef cattle industry.

However, one should not overlook the many positive environmental benefits of agriculture. For example, agricultural practices that conserve soil and improve soil quality also increase the amount of carbon-rich organic matter in soils, thereby providing a global depository for carbon dioxide drawn from the atmosphere by growing plants. The same farming practices that promote soil conservation also decrease the amount of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere and threatening global warming.

According to the Agricultural Marketing Research Center, if federal and state governments create incentives for lowering greenhouse gas emissions farmers in the State of Kansas will be uniquely positioned to take advantage of these by: 

1)   Sequestering carbon in agricultural soils by reducing tillage,  
2)   Reducing nitrous oxide emissions through more efficient use of nitrogen fertilizer,  
3)   Developing viable technologies for creating ammonia (nitrogen fertilizer) from feedstocks other than natural gas.  
4)   Capturing methane emissions from anaerobic manure handling facilities,  
5)   Substituting renewable fuels for gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas used on the farm,  
6)   Increasing the generation of electricity from wind and other renewable sources,  
7)   Expanding the use of practices like managed shelterbelts and forested riparian zones, 
8)   Other changes not yet thought of.  

Kansans need to be prepared for climate change regulations. Agricultural communities need to start exploring the above opportunities more seriously in order to reduce their own impacts, help others mitigate theirs, and develop new sectors of the economy supported by agriculture. Organizations like the Kansas Rural Center and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition are committed to economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially sustainable rural culture. In addition, here is an excellent and simple explanation from the American Farmland Trust for agriculture’s role in the cap-and-trade system.

-Joshua Foster

What is ‘Cap-and-Trade’?

For “KU EARTH WEEK” I wanted to explore an idea central to sustainability and the environment. The following post is a brief introduction to the Cap-and-Trade system for reducing the GHG emissions that contribute to global warming. Each week through the end of this semester I will explore further the theory, possible future legislation, and the positives and negatives of this controversial idea.

‘Cap-and-Trade’, also known as emissions trading, is a system under which a controlling body (usually the government) sets a “cap” on emissions that limits the total amount of air pollution for an entire country (or the world). Under this system, all green house gas emitters are allocated permits to pollute either on the basis of past emission levels or by auctioning the permits off to the highest bidder.

Of course, given that Cap-and-Trade  is a free-market based system, it would allow the market, and not the government, to decide the most cost-effective solutions. Each permit is fully transferable; they can be bought and sold. Firms that pollute beyond the level allowed by the number of  permits they own can purchase more from firms that have reduced their emission level and have excess permits for sale. 

Although polluters under this policy will have an incentive to reduce emissions in exchange for cold hard cash, the cost of reducing emissions should be less than or equal to the cost of a permit for the market to work properly.  If the firm cannot install emission reducing technology at a reasonable price, then it is forced to purchase additional permits. It is through this pricing mechanism that Cap-and-Trade would promote the lowest cost opportunities for reducing GHG emissions.

The government regulator issues exactly the number of permits that would produce the desired level of air pollution. As a consequence for emitting beyond the pollution level allowed by the permits acquired by a firm, the government regulator would issue severe monetary sanctions above the cost of an allowance — thus providing a strong incentive to comply with the regulation. Governments may calculate the cap level by assigning a target for the reduction of today’s emissions levels. Or for example, a government can call for a provisional greenhouse gas emissions target — like the US recently did for the year 2020 in which reductions would be “in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels.”

-Joshua Foster

Earth Week Events at KU

ALL of these events can also be found at http://conserveku.com or http://www.sustainability.ku.edu/calendar.shtml!

Lecture: Drop City

Date: Tue, 04/13/2010 – 7:00pm – 8:00pm

Lecture by Gene Bernofsky: Drop City was founded in 1965 near Trinidad, Colorado, but it was largely conceived in Lawrence by KU students and graduates.  Known as an artist community and the first rural “hippie commune,” Drop City received much media attention in its day, largely because of its unconventional architecture.  Most buildings were homemade domes covered in a patchwork of metal car tops in a profusion of colors.  Co-founder Gene Bernofsky will speak about the project.

7:00- 8:00 p.m. in the Big 12 Room of the Kansas Union

Sponsored by KU’s School of the Arts, Department of Religious Studies, Humanities and Western Civilization Program and American Studies Program.

Gene Bernofsky Films

Date: Wed, 04/14/2010 – 7:00pm – 9:00pm

Gene Bernofsky, co-founder of Drop City, has recently produced independent films exposing the damaging effects of industrial projects.  He will be showing and discussing some of his environmental films as well as some of his earlier experimental films.

7:00- 9:00 p.m. in 108 Smith Hall

Sponsored by KU’s School of the Arts, Department of Religious Studies, Humanities and Western Civilization Program and American Studies Program.

Lecture: Robert Cervero on Transportation Investments, Place Making and Economic Development

Date: Thu, 04/15/2010 – 6:00pm – 8:00pm

Robert Cervero, PhD, professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkely works in the area of sustainable transportation policy and planning, focusing on the nexus between urban transportation and land-use systems.  His current research is on the intersection between infrastructure, place-making, and economic development as well as urban transformations and their impacts on travel behavior.

6:00- 8:00 p.m. in the Hancock Ballroom of the Oread

» Read more

Critical Earth Bike Ride

Date: Fri, 04/16/2010 – 5:30pm – 7:00pm

Show your support for the earth by bicycling around town for the evening with friends who appreciate the most environmentally-friendly means of transportation.  Whether you bike is big or small, old or new, you will be accepted and immersed by the mass.  This ride is about having fun, enjoying the weather and promoting bicycle awareness in a legal manner.

5:30 p.m. beginning at Wescoe Beach

Sponsored by KU Environs

10th Annual Earth Day Parade & Celebration

Date: Sat, 04/17/2010 – 11:00am – 4:00pm

The day begins with a parade down Massachusetts Street at 11:00 a.m. from Seventh Street to South Park.  The Celebration in the park includes live music, children’s activities and food vendors.  Attendees are invited to learn from exhibits about waste reduction, recycling, composting, alternative fuels and vehicles, energy conservation, land preservation, and wildlife and habitat preservation.

» Read more

Look, Listen, and Share Education Fair

Date: Sat, 04/17/2010 – 11:20pm

Scientists, Environmental Activists, KU Faculty, local bands, and Local Business Owners gather to celebrate and discuss sustainability in Lawrence.

3:00- 6:00 p.m. at the Barrel House

Sponsored by Blue Sky Green Earth

Generations of Resistance Workshop and Concert

Date: Sun, 04/18/2010 – 4:00pm – 8:00pm

The event kicks off with a workshop covering a variety of issues, including community organizing, climate justice, women/labor issues.  There will be an hour-long break from 5:30- 6:30 p.m. for food, drinks, and further discussions.  The event will finish with a concert by Evan Greer and Anne Feeney from 6:30- 8:00 p.m.  Evan Greer is a queer singer/songwriter, community organizer, and popular educator based in Boston.  A member of the artist run Riot-Folk!

»Read more

Climate Justice Week 2010: Live Sketching Contest

Date: Mon, 04/19/2010 – 11:00am – 2:00pm

Artists will be asked to represent a climate justice theme through a medium of their choice, and will have approximately an hour to complete their work on Wescoe Beach.  Passing students can vote on which work they like best.

11:00 a.m.- 2:00 p.m. on Wescoe Beach

Sponsored by Oxfam and KU Engineers Without Borders

Lecture: Farm to Plate

Date: Mon, 04/19/2010 – 7:00pm – 9:00pm

Dan Nagengast, Director of Kansas Rural Center and Phil Pisciotta, Owner of Fresh Food Express LLC will speak about the local food and transportation.  There will also be an interactive poster competition for students to highlight the role that transportation plays in the delivery of food and possible impacts on the environment.  First place prize is an Amazon Kindle.  Free food will also be provided Local Burger and the Merc.

7:00- 9:00 p.m. in Alderson Auditorium at the Kansas Union

» Read more

FLOW: The Film That Will Make You Change The Way You Think About Water

Date: Tue, 04/20/2010 – 7:00pm – 9:00pm

Flow: For Love of Water is a 2008 documentary that concentrates on the big business privatization of water infrastructure that prioritizes profits over the availability of clean water for people and the environment.

The Film Showing is sponsored by Environs, the Environmental Stewardship Program, the Center for Sustainability, the Environmental Studies Program, the Geography Department, and Campus Progress.

7:00- 9:00 p.m in Alderson Auditorium of the Kansas Union

Climate Justice Week 2010: Stand Up-Economist Yoram Bauman

Date: Wed, 04/21/2010 – 8:00pm – 9:00pm

Yoram Bauman, self described as “the world’s first stand-up economist,” has a PhD in Economics from the University of Washington and currently works as an environmental economist for the University of Washington’s award-winning Program on the Environment.  By night, he performs comedy at colleges, comedy clubs, and corporate events around the world.

Sponsored by Oxfam and KU Engineers Without Borders

8:00- 9:00 p.m. in Alderson Auditorium of the Kansas Union

Wescoe’s Waste

Date: Thu, 04/22/2010 – 10:00am – 3:00pm

KU Recycling will be conducting a waste audit (Wescoe’s waste) for capstone on the Stauffer-Flint lawn.  The event will be accompanied by educating people about junk mail reduction and promoting the new printer cartridge recycling service.

Sponsored by KU Recycling

10:00 a.m.- 3:00 p.m. on Stauffer-Flint Lawn

Earth Day Field Day

Date: Thu, 04/22/2010 – 11:00am – 1:00pm

Take a break from your long day of class with SUA’s Earth Day Field Day.  There will be yard games, an environmental organization information fair, free popcorn, and wildflowers to take home!

Sponsored by Student Union Activities

11:00 a.m.- 1:00 p.m. at the Kansas Union Plaza

Greek Housing Black Out

Date: Thu, 04/22/2010 – 4:00pm – 5:00pm

From 4:00- 5:00 p.m. all the chapter houses involved in Greeks Going Green will participate in an all house Black Out.  During this time there will be no electrical use of any kind.

Sponsored by Greeks Going Green

Rock Chalk Greenhawk

Date: Thu, 04/22/2010 – 4:30pm – 7:30pm

KU Dining Services will be featuring some local menu items at all three residential dining centers.  Local farmers, door prizes, and informational displays of sustainability initiatives will accompany the local food.

Sponsored by KU Dining Services

4:30- 7:30 p.m. at all residential dining locations

Climate Justice Week 2010: Trivia Night

Date: Thu, 04/22/2010 – 7:00pm – 8:30pm

Trivia Night is co-sponsored by the Honors Program Student Council, Oxfam, and KU Engineers Without Borders

7:00- 8:30 p.m. in the Traditions Lobby of the Kansas Union

Lecture: 40th Anniversary of Earth Day- the Struggle for a Healthy Environment: the Legacies of Rachel Carson and Earth Day

Date: Thu, 04/22/2010 – 7:30pm – 8:30pm

We are ecstatic to have Nancy Langston, Professor of Environmental Studies and Forestry & Wildlife Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison as our Earth Day Lecturer.

Sponsored by the Environmental Studies Program, KU Environs, Student Senate and the Center for Sustainability

7:30- 8:30 p.m. in the Big 12 Room of the KS Union

Potter Passion Pit: Workday at Potter’s Lake

Date: Sat, 04/24/2010 – 10:30am – 1:00pm

The day starts at 10:30 a.m. on the northern shore of Potter’s Lake by the bridge.  We will divide up into smaller work groups to rake the northern bank, plant in the Dance Pavilion flower bed, and to clean the grill pits and surrounding area.  Everyone is welcome to switch tasks at their leisure and to bring frisbees and footballs for breaks.  Following the work will be a mid-day grilling of hot dogs, burgers, etc.

This event is sponsored by Potter’s Lake Project

10:30 a.m.- 1:00 p.m. at Potter’s Lake

Climate Justice Week 2010: Azacilo Olympics

Date: Sat, 04/24/2010 – 12:00pm – 2:00pm

Azacilo Olympics is a relay race to symbolize and raise awareness of the difficulties of living in Azacilo, Bolivia, the city KU Engineers Without Borders travels to annually to assist with engineering problems.  Teams of two can enter and compete to win gift cards to local stores.

Sponsored by Oxfam and KU Engineers Without Borders

12:00- 2:00 p.m. at the Memorial Campanile

Sustaining the Campus

Note: This is the 2nd post in a series on the role of sustainability in higher education.

When we think about the word campus, we may think of the faculty, students and staff that form a community based around academics and service or even the culture of student life that flourishes at these places.  Some think about the various structures including buildings, roads, and other components of infrastructure lying below the surface that many don’t even know exist.  But all of these aspects are an important part of making a campus whole and creating the living, breathing organism that is a college or university campus.

The problem is, those organisms consume a considerable amount of resources, and put out a considerable amount of waste. That creates a challenge in figuring out how to provide a valuable service without exceeding our carrying capacity so to speak.  But it also provides us with the opportunity to examine our operations through the lens of sustainability to not only reduce those impacts, but also demonstrate strategies for more sustainable operations to those in the campus community and beyond.

Institutions of higher education are an important part of community conversations and our actions capture attention both locally and regionally.  We therefore serve as a model for other communities to follow and have a responsibility to our funders and communities to maximize our efficiency, to operate in a way that not only helps sustain our own campuses but also the communities we are a part of.

That means looking at the environmental, economic, and social impacts of what we bring in to the campus as resources, how we manage those resources, and what we send away as waste.

The resources we bring on to campus present opportunities to support local businesses so that the dollars we spend keep circulating in the community.  Considering sustainability in the procurement means purchasing goods that are environmentally responsible and are produced by companies that also consider sustainability, that provide safe, healthy working conditions and fair wages for their employees.

It also involves thinking about the 3 R’s to minimize the the resources that will eventually leave our campus as waste.  When making procurement decisions, we need to consider how we might be able to reuse and redistribute goods once we are through using them, and ensure that what remains can be recycled, composted, or otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner.

One simple example of this purchasing recycled-content office paper.  Although we have worked to reduce the price of recycled paper, it still costs about 12% more than virgin paper. That means we have to decrease paper use by 12% to break even.  Student Success Technology Services has proven this can be done by setting printers to default to duplex: initial results indicated a 37% decrease in paper use after implementing their conservation policy. In this case, recycled-content paper could be used, and savings could still be realized.  In a system where the goal is to pay the lowest cost, it is important to consider strategies like this to be able to purchase items that may cost more because they are currently in lesser demand, but have greater environmental or social benefits.

One a much larger scale, similar arguments can be made about green building practices.  Although initial costs for efficiency and less toxic materials may be higher, over the lifetime of the building we’ll see a reduction in the amount of money spent on energy and maintenance, and studies even indicate that the health of employees is better in green buildings, leading to fewer sick days and increased productivity.

By integrating sustainability into our operations, we begin to address our second major role in advancing sustainability: education.  Highlighting the efforts made in operations presents an opportunity to educate the campus community – students, staff, and faculty alike – about sustainability.  For example the Multicultural Resource Center has a brochure in their waiting area detailing their efforts to recycle and reduce resource use, and offers suggestions for how visitors can help reduce their impact.  It also includes a reminder to return or recycle the brochure when finished.

This is just one example of how operations and education are intertwined and further highlights the multiple benefits of operating more sustainably.  Although the economic advantages are the most sought after in our current economic climate, they come with some very positive side effects that can help sustain the campus organism while eliminating its negative impacts.

– Jeff Severin

More Sustainable Transportation?

The KU Center for Sustainability is in the process of writing a Sustainable Campus Transportation survey questionnaire. The purpose of the survey and anticipated use of the results are to gather information about commuting behaviors and specific modes of alternative transportation. This will be used to help us report campus-related greenhouse gas emissions and guide our decisions to pursue programs that will promote and encourage alternative modes of transportation. We will be able to separate student data for targeted study and therefore be able to address the unique needs of students by illustrating more cost-effective, environmentally responsible choices.

According to past surveys, the majority of students come to campus 5 days per week, live within 5 miles of campus, and own a personal vehicle that they drive alone to campus. The KU Center for Sustainability hopes to guide several discussions about changing the way we transport ourselves, ways we can reduce KU’s impact on the surrounding environment, and how to develop a deeper understanding of sustainability within the campus community.

The Center for Sustainability will gather this data to gauge student, faculty, and staff perspectives on each type of transportation mode (biking, using the bus, travelling by car, carpooling, riding a motorcycle/moped, and walking), the installation and use of a campus car-sharing program, and better ways to encourage alternative modes of transportation.

In addition, we will calculate a current sample average for each respondent group of students, faculty members, and staff. Using this average, we plan to calculate the most efficient mode of transportation for each group by taking into account the cost of parking, the cost of vehicle ownership, the average number of trips a person makes to campus, the average distance traveled, the value of a person’s time, and an approximate value of environmental damage (carbon emissions) for each mode choice.

Recently, in a joint course between the NSF funded C-CHANGE IGERT Program and the Urban Planning Graduate Program at the University of Kansas, a team of 12 graduate students completed a greenhouse gas inventory for the KU Lawrence campus, gathering data on our emissions from electricity and natural gas use, transportation, and other sources. The Center will use the data collected in this survey to supplement and/or verify the KU Climate Action Plan’s findings on greenhouse gas emissions from KU campus commutes.

If you receive this 10 minute survey in your e-mail inbox, answer all the questions so that KU can become more sustainable.

-Joshua Foster

Paper Use Reduction and Conservation II

A February 6, 2010 New York Times article about the Hawaii state senate’s effort to reduce wasteful spending through paper reduction showcases how sustainability can save money and help the environment. Hawaii’s state senate took a very hard-line to reduce its expenditures: “no more paper unless absolutely necessary.” While this decree may be easily applied to a 25 member state senate, a move to entirely remove paper from an institution of higher education would undoubtedly prove disastrous — Although, we can all learn a lesson from this kind of effort.

In a previous post, I wrote a brief analysis on how the University of Kansas could limit its environmental impact by reducing paper consumption and energy usage while simultaneously creating a culture of sustainability through the implementation of environmentally conscious guidelines. Although copy paper is necessary to the daily operations of the University, there are options to reduce consumption like the effort put forth in the Hawaiian government without compromising productivity. The University of Kansas should pursue drafting a campus-wide printing policy that includes the implementation of a double-sided (duplex) default setting for all printers on campus. This will reduce paper waste while encouraging students, faculty, and staff to reduce other wasteful practices.

I want to reiterate the potential for paper reduction outlined by the results within the Student Success Technology Services Office, which put forth an incredible amount of work in creating and implementing the Student Success Technology Conservation Policy. The findings (highlighted in the previous post) show that there was a 37% reduction in cost associated with printing after the implementation of the policy. If a reduction of that magnitude resulted from a similar university-wide policy implementation it would save approximately $115,000 per year!

Direct and concrete changes to KU policy could have a dramatic effect on how we conduct business at the University. A quote from the article says it best: “Doing it this way was so different and daunting at first,” said the [Hawaiian] Senate clerk, Carol Taniguchi. “Now it really seems to be a way of life.” Although there may be strong initial push-back to a revision of university policy, people will get used to the new rules, the new way of thinking, and change their habits for the benefit of their own office or department as well as the entire university and our environment.

-Joshua Foster