Oil: A World in Short Supply

Have you heard about the Minerva course "Oil: A World in Short Supply"?

Each year the College offers an interdisciplinary course open to all students that focuses on a single topic and is taught by a variety of professors. Known as the Minerva Course, this spring’s course is entitled “Oil: A World in Short Supply.” Past topics have included presidential elections, food, technology and society, and globalization.

The 10-week course also includes lectures by accomplished guests. The lectures are free and open to the public.

On Monday April 11 we heard from historian and sociologist Robin Blackburn. Professor Blackburn is a professor of sociology at Essex University in the UK and a distinguished visiting professor of historical studies at The New School, NYC. His talk was entitled “Sweet Power: Global Powers and the Premium Commodity from Sugar to Oil”. 

He spoke about how the Civil War was fought over commodities like cotton and tobacco.Blackburn talked about slavery and the establishment of the slave trade in England, Africa, and the United States. He talked about cotton and sugar and how England came to treasure these commodities. He discussed how slavery developed in the U.S. as the most efficient way of harvesting a large volume of crops from the land. He talked about how this single commodity use spurred war in the U.S.

However it is this blogger's opinion that Blackburn discussed slavery in too great of detail. Oil was not a major topic of his discussion. Students were hoping for more on the subject, but instead got a history lesson. That being said this blogger understands that he is a historian, but he is a sociologist as well. He could have definitely spiced up the lecture with some aspects from sociology. Maybe we could have heard about other wars that were fought over commodities. While Blackburn was definitely knowledgeable in his area of study, hopefully the next speaker will not focus so much on the past

So come and check out the speakers!

On Wednesday, May 4 at 7 p.m. in the Nott come hear Riki Ott, marine biologist, author and former commercial fisherwoman. She will be talking about “Exxon Valdez to Gulf Disaster: Changing the Endgame”.

On Wednesday, May 11 at 7 p.m. in Olin 115 come listen to Michael Klare, journalist and political science professor. He will be discussing “The Perils of Extreme Oil: Extractive Strategies in the Twilight Era of Petroleum".

On Monday, May 16 at 7 p.m. in the Nott come hear Tariq Ali, British writer, filmmaker, political analyst and historian. His talk will be about “The Oil Wars and World Politics.” 

On Wednesday, May 25 at 7 p.m. in the Nott come listen to Mia Birk who is an urban planner. She will be discussing “Pedaling toward a Healthier Planet”.

See you there!

Union's Winter Environmental Speaker Series!

So you knew about Union’s Environmental Science, Policy and Engineering Winter 2011 Seminar Series, right?

Michael Hansen of Consumer Union continued the series “Inside the Controversy on Genetically Modified Food” with a talk on “Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals: Answers to Questions They Don’t Want Asked (Science, Regulation, Environmental and Human Health Impacts)”.

Here Shabana Hoosein '11, gives us a nice summary of the talk. 

“Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals: Answers to Questions They Don’t Want Asked (Science, Regulation, Environmental and Human Health Impacts).”

            Michael Hansen is a Senior Staff Scientist with Consumer’s Union and his educational background is in the field of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. His post-graduate work was on the impacts of biotechnology on agricultural research. Hansen’s talk was a great mixture of politics and science. In the first part of his talk, Hansen spoke about genetics from an ecological perspective. He said that the more complicated work you do with DNA, the more unstable it is. Most things in nature work in a similar way. For example, if you alter things in the environment, the environment will not be able to recover and exist naturally.

Hansen brought along another valid point from the science perspective. He said that in other DNA modification studies, there is usually some sort of “selective marker” to show if the modified gene is being expressed. Genetically modified crops use antibiotic resistance as a selective marker. Therefore, to test if the genetically modified gene will show, they link it to the antibiotic gene and test if the antibiotic gene shows. When ingesting the antibiotic marker, there is a risk that the antibiotic resistance is transferred to E. coli bacteria present in the guts of humans. This would make E. coli bacteria resistant to antibiotics. E.coli is the leading agent responsible for food poisoning. If we create antibiotic resistant E.coli, it would be more difficult to treat food poisoning cases.  The antibiotic marker is currently not used anymore to make new GE plants. However, what Hansen said is that the crops currently out there still have the antibiotic marker in them.

Hansen continued his talk on the FDA’s involvement with GM crops in our markets. In 1992 the FDA claimed that, “new technologies are extensions at the molecular level of traditional methods used to achieve some goals as traditional plant breeding.” However, the FDA does not hold their own experiments, require pre-market assessments or make any conclusions on their own. Many people in the public may believe that the FDA is on the consumer’s side, but that is not the case. I thought this was a strong argument to show that the FDA does not have much of a say behind the science that they agree with (or disagree with). Hansen also points out that in 2001, the FDA admitted that biotechnology and traditional breeding are indeed different because of external pressure from political riots in Seattle. This goes to show that government organizations like the FDA rely on private companies or public upheaval to determine the organization’s opinion. The second half of the argument really tied it all together and made me realize that the government does not work alone.

            Everything that Hansen was saying was very strong until things got technical. His argument on gene transformation was not explained very well. He said in 2003, insertional mutagenesis was used on male children who were born without an immune system. The male children were doing well until 3 out of the 11 children were diagnosed with leukemia. Firstly, mutagenesis is very different from gene modification. Secondly, were there any other environmental factors that could have had an impact on these children developing leukemia? Most likely, the leukemia was developed through this mutagenesis gene transformation. There is some evidence that RNA can actually change the DNA and therefore cause mutations in your genome, which can lead to cancer. Conventionally, it is believed that DNA makes RNA and RNA makes proteins. During gene therapy, RNA is usually injected to heal a patient. On the other hand, some evidence suggests that this injected RNA alters the DNA of the patient.  As a member of the audience, it seemed like Hansen was persuading us to believe that mutagenesis on human genes is just as bad as genetic modification on plant genes. However, mutagenesis IS different gene splicing and the human body is much more complex than plant structures.

I feel like Hansen wanted explain many things with great scientific detail and evidence, but he did not have the time. He went through a bunch of scientific papers just to give the audience an idea of the data that we have on genetically modified foods. So far, Hansen has been my favorite speaker. Even though he kind of leaves the audience hanging (and only giving them main points), he encourages everyone to do more research and look into these studies on our own.  Not only that, Hansen gave a lot of raw data and data from around the globe. Therefore, he did not only look at the opinions of developing or poor countries.

At the end of his talk, he made two conclusions about genetically modified crops. The first conclusion is that there is insufficient data. We need to have studies that have a solid design, large sample sizes and are observed over an extended period of time. The second conclusion was that the US policy on GE plants is inadequate. There are many unanswered health questions, no safety assessments (or labeling) required and increased use of pesticides. I liked the end of his talk because he was able to sum up his views clearly, while not being overly repetitive. Then again, I didn’t enjoy the tension during the question and answer section. Hansen’s passion and confidence in science makes me believe his strong arguments the most out of the 3 speakers we have seen so far.

Ozone Cookbook!

 Are you a vegetarian? 

Do you find yourself throwing together the same boring meals all the time?

Wait, Union's own environmentally conscious Ozone House puts together a vegetarian cookbook?

 Ozone cookbook is an entirely vegetarian cookbook created by Ozone House. It is sold in the spring, and all proceeds go to a great cause. Submit your favorite recipes! It's seasonal this year so if you know of a great fall soup, or some awesome chip dip for the summer, please write and design an 8.5 X 11 (i.e. standard computer paper) with your recipe, and either scan it and email Maddie Cullerton at

cullertm@garnet.union.edu, or put it in mailbox #0468.

Be sure to submit your recipes by the end of spring break/the first Wednesday in April!


Is it time you take a walk on the wild side...and go green by not eating meat?

Check out Chew On This: 30 Reasons to go Vegetarian

Do it in the Dark!

If you weren't at the last U-Sustain meeting, then you missed the results of Do It in the Dark, Union's campus-wide energy saving competition!

At the meeting, we heard from Professor Puliafico about the competition for all student dorms, Minerva houses, off campus housing, and Administrative buildings.

Trophies with a light bulb fixed to the top were handed out to these first place winners in four different categories based on the size of the building:

Apartment Living: 702 Roger Hull Place
Mid-Size Living (Minerva Houses): Golub House
Large Dormitory (Fox, Davidson, College Park Hall): Richmond Dorm
Administrative Building: Silliman Hall

Congratulations to the winners!

SCEAC!

Have you ever heard of SCEAC?

The Schenectady County Environmental Advisory Council is made up of volunteers who share a strong commitment to preserving and enhancing the County’s rich environmental resources. 

What does the council do? 

• It advises the County Legislature on matters affecting the preservation, development and use of the natural and man-made features of the County

• It evaluates activities, projects and operations that may effect the environment to determine where major threats to environmental quality exist

• It raises public awareness concerning the importance of a healthy environment, gathers and disseminates public comment on environmental issues and encourages public support of environmentally sound policies and actions.

• It improves the coordination and effectiveness of programs undertaken by the public and private agencies to preserve and enhance the environment.

• It assesses the state of the County’s environment and produces an annual report that includes discussions of current problem areas and outlines priorites for future action.

• It recommends additions to the County Nature and Historic Preserve.

 So...What does this have to do with Union College?

Students from Union act as liasons between the college and SCEAC. They attend meetings and listen in on just what's going on with environmental politics in Schenectady County. 

Jane Williams, '13 summarizes the latest meeting held this February.


Guest speaker Larry Simpson spoke about his company's website its new partnership with Schenectady County. This site is focused on getting money and funding to citizens for green initiatives. This site will tell you where to get a free energy audit for your home and how to get tax credits for investing in energy efficient appliances and homes. 
There was also a long talk about Earth Hour, a global event that promotes awareness of energy reduction. 
 It started in Sydney, Australia in 2007 and has since grown into a global movement with hundreds of millions of people from more than 4,500 cities and towns in 128 countries across every continent! Some of the world's most famous sights--Buckingham Palace, China's Forbidden City, the Eiffel Tower, the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Brazil's Christ the Redeemer Statue, the Empire State Building, and the Sydney Opera House-- remained in darkness for a whole sixty minutes to promote Earth Hour!

So turn off your lights at 8:30 p.m. on Saturday March 26th and celebrate Earth Hour!

See you there!

Union's Winter Environmental Speaker Series...Continued!

Catch the latest in Union's Environmental Science, Policy and Engineering Winter 2011 Seminar Series:
 “Inside the Controversy on Genetically Modified Food”

Did you hear Ronald Herring of Cornell University speak on “Global Rifts Over Biotechnology: Politics, Science, Political Science”?

Want to find out what he said?

Here's a summary of the talk written by Shabana Hoosein, '11.

Ron Herring is a political scientist who is pro GMO. He started his talk off by explaining that there are two global risks to genetically modified foods. The first risk pertains to the recombinant DNA work in plants. The second risk is the contentious dynamic between supporting and opposing networks. For example, some networks are concerned with the safety of consumption and other networks promote GMOs as the solution to feed the poor. He explains that there is a diffusion of this technology that counterbalances in society. As the amount of GMO crops increase, the amount of transgenic free zones increase as well. I suppose this was his way of letting the audience know that the increase of GM use is acceptable.

Ron continued to explain the outrageous GM myths that affect people (for example: infertility, cancer, abortion, suicides and even homosexuality). He uses these examples to convince the audience that information from the media is not reliable. I can understand the point that he makes on farmer suicides. The makers of “The World According to Monsanto” did not make a very strong point about this topic. It seemed like the film was biased and selective in the scenes referring to farmer suicides. As Herring said, I believe that people in India are strong family supporters and they would not commit suicide because of their farms. It is difficult for me to understand the truth behind his argument because I have not talked to farmers in India. However, his argument about farmer suicides was the strongest part of his talk.

Out of all the gene modifications that are occurring in the world, Herring seemed to like Bt cotton the most. According to his talk, Bt has drastically increased the yield for small farmers. He said the rate of Bt adoption has increased to 98% after 2006. Although he provided great numbers, he didn’t take some things into consideration. Other anti-GM papers have acknowledged the increase in cotton yield since the introduction of Bt cotton. Nonetheless, they also took climatic conditions into consideration. For the past decade, climatic conditions have been great which may be contributing to the positive yield in cotton production. He also mentioned that the rate of adoption has drastically increased. His assumption was that GM use had increased because farmers are buying more GM seeds. However, he did not mention that transgenic crops have also increased due to cross-pollination. In addition, farmers may have thought that these seeds were great in 2006, but they may have changed their minds more recently. Ron did not have any current data in his presentation.

Overall, I believe that Ron Herring was fairly biased. He only showed two sides of the story when the second side helped him prove his point. He was blatantly trying to convince the audience of one idea. However, the audience was smarter than that. My favorite question was: Where is your research funded from?

 So, how do you feel about GMOs?

U-SUSTAIN!

Already a member of Environmental Club? Wanna get involved in another green group on campus? 

Then U-Sustain is right for you!

U-Sustain is a group of students, faculty, and staff committed to promoting sustainability at Union College.
Ultimately, the goal, as stipulated by the ACUPCC, of which we are signatories, is that Union becomes carbon neutral, therefore decreasing Union's carbon footprint is central to U-Sustain's mission. In addition to
decreasing Union's carbon footprint, U-Sustain spearheads sustainable initiatives on campus, dispatches Green Grants, acts as a clearinghouse for environmentally related events going on on campus, and pools resources and creativity to promote environmental consciousness at Union College.

Previously, U-Sustain was comprised of sub-committees that focused on portions of Union's carbon footprint (ex: Energy, Dining, Waste, Transportation...) and took on projects individually. With the new year, the structure of U-Sustain has changed considerably. Now, as a group projects will be chosen for the duration of the term or year, and members will have the option to sign up to be committees for each project. In addition, there is a Rapid Response Team who will be contacted for events that come up last minute and volunteers are needed. The only subcommittee that has been preserved is Education & Outreach which is critical in terms of spreading word about the work of U-Sustain and other environmental groups on campus.

Projects for Winter Term 2011: 

• Do It In the Dark: data accumulation & analysis

• Recyclemania

• Green Grants Awarded Winter Term 2011

Upcoming Initiatives: 

• Re-useable To-Go Containers at Upper & West Dining Halls

                 

• Trash Audit in the Spring

• And much more to come!

The next U-Sustain meeting is Wednesday, February 23rd at Common Lunch (12:50-1:50) in Old Chapel

See you there!