The panel, co-sponsored by MassPIRG's Campus Climate Initiative and Re-Think, brought in Director of Facilities Planning and Management Jim Brassord, Assistant Professor of Economics Jessica Reyes, Professor of Sociology and American Studies Jan Dizard and Professor Brian Hagenbach from Holyoke Community College, who offered insights from their areas of expertise and drew from many others. The panel was followed by a discussion which expanded to include more economic and political issues.
Brassord opened the panel, relating through his experiences in physical plant how a single institution can work for environmental change. He noted the benefits of energy saving to the institution, using as an example power-saving measures in Orr Rink which Brassord said reduces carbon dioxide emissions and saves the school $50,000 a year. "It's good for the environment and it's good for the institution, that's 50,000 dollars that can go towards other things like scholarships and research," he said.
Brassord also spoke about an ambitious project to remove the College from the power grid and generate electricity on-site, enabling the College to use energy-efficient methods that would reduce the school's carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent. "This is a very exciting initiative, and indicative of our commitment to sustainability," he said.
Reyes spoke next, discussing the Kyoto Protocols from an economist's point of view, arguing that by operating the Kyoto protocols using incentives, such as tradable pollution permits, rather than regulation, the program would be more effective and its costs would be cut to 25 percent of their current level. "While economists don't generally get a good rap with this kind of stuff, the fact is that people, and especially companies, think a lot in incentives, so if you want to fix something, the key is to align the incentives correctly," she said.
Hagenbach switched the focus to domestic politics, first responding to a comment by panel moderator and MassPIRG member Meghan Kemp-Gee '07, who had expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the federal government in creating environmental change. Hagenbach called the sentiment "lamentable" and instead wanted to understand exactly why the federal government had been ineffective. "The problem is the structure in particular of our government," he argued. "It's no coincidence that our government is virtually the only one dragging its feet on these issues."
Specifically, Hagenbach cited our winner-takes-all election system, which makes it difficult for a candidate to tell voters that they must make sacrifices. However, he said that he saw hope especially in institutions that most would regard as "conservative," specifically the Pentagon and wealthy underwriters, that were very careful and planned for every eventuality, because they were considering the worst-case-scenarios of environmental disaster and working to prevent them.
Dizard was the final panelist who opened his presentation by engaging the audience and asking them what evidence they could provide for global warming, offering examples such as an increase in invasive species, increased mating times in animals and an increase in cancers. He then moved on to how academic institutions could make a difference, emphasizing the potential of interdisciplinary education. Environmental issues, he stressed, do not fall into one discipline, but require a combination of science, political science and economics, along with other disciplines, in order to find a solution.
The floor then opened for questions, and audience members discussed issues with the panelists for over an hour. Students discussed Reyes' arguments on incentives and gave examples of when incentives cannot solve environmental problems. Hagenbach added that it is important to consider altruism as a possible solution to environmental problems, and in some cases, the only solution. "Sometimes, there is no carrot and stick," he said. He discussed how to best appeal to the altruism of individuals and institutions.
The two MassPIRG coordinators of the event, Kemp-Gee and Nitya Viswanathan '07, said they organized the event because they noticed a lack of environmental discussion on campus. "We wanted to approach our question from a variety of angles, to emphasize how multi-dimensional and interdisciplinary any serious consideration of the environment must be," they said. "For this reason, debate about the environment is perfectly suited for a liberal arts college like Amherst, so we're disappointed it doesn't happen more." They were pleased with student enthusiasm and attendance at the event, and especially by the length of the discussion.
Michael Simmons '06, the co-president of Re-Think, also helped coordinate the event with MassPIRG. He said that the event found the two groups sharing a common interest in bringing in interesting speakers on important issues. "Re-Think is all about learning outside the classroom," he commented.
Conor Clarke '07, who runs Re-Think along with Simmons, also attended the event. "I thought the most interesting part of the event was Physical Plant Director Jim Brassord's talk," he said. "You don't often get to hear about what Amherst is doing do deal with issues of the environment and energy consumption, and Brassord's talk gave those issues a local reality."
Michael Chernicoff '09, who is involved in MassPIRG's Water Watch group, enjoyed the panel but was ultimately pessimistic about broader environmental efforts. "Ultimately, I was left feeling that we are going to have to be the ones who fix stuff because nobody else can be relied on to do it, despite whatever economic or political pressures may exist," he said.
Simmons took a more optimistic message from the panel, though he agreed that change would not come easily. "The most important lesson was that no one person can solve the problems around environmental damage," he said. "Institutions, like colleges, businesses and legislatures, ordinary we citizens and activists all have to work symbiotically before see any real progress."