Archives for Getting to Green

How great is this blog? Very great, that’s how. Welcome to IHE, my friend! I look forward to reading.

Oronte, A blogger, at 8:35 am EST on February 1, 2008

Trays

I still have a beige dining hall tray from my first stint at Kent State University, 1965-67, and it brings back fond memories. I kind of like the “no tray” movement. Maybe my own tray will be worth more as a collectible on some future version of eBay because of it.

I also think the “no tray” movement is brilliant, and an example of how institutional staff can be more directly involved in students’ learning experiences. My friend Tony Cortese, of Second Nature, often speaks of visiting campuses with “green” buildings where there is nothing about the buildings — no signage, no explanations — that involves their green nature in the educational process.

“No trays” works educationally on so many levels: energy, economics, health, even social justice. Just one example of lots more little things that we need to do.

Terry Calhoun, Society for College and University Planning, at 9:05 am EST on February 1, 2008

That sounds like a good thing in principle, but as with many good ideas the devil is in the details. For example, my university is tuition-driven, but in an affluent area, and the only way for me to live closer to it would be to get a salary increase that I recognize the university cannot afford.

Sue Donna Moss, IT Manager at Small Private Mid-Atlantic University, at 10:35 am EST on February 5, 2008

Snow days

A fine sentiment, except when one takes into consideration those institutions that are located smack in areas with exorbitantly high-cost real estate. To consider “encouraging” a typically paid staff member (or adjunct faculty member!) to “live closer” for ecological reasons is uninformed. A different tack is to develop an online ride-sharing application and widely publicize it. That not only cuts down emissions, but is also viable economically.

T. McElwaine, at 8:45 pm EST on February 7, 2008

Hey, that’s a pet peeve of mine, too. But instead of having conversations with administrators, I had conversations with the people who do it.

It’s not laziness, or at least not for the students I spoke with, it’s the “cool” factor of making a door open by hitting a target.

I like the idea of the 10-second delay. It might also work to change the look and feel of the target that has to be hit, so it looks less like something that gets you a prize when you hit it at the carnival.

Terry Calhoun, Society for College and University Planning (SCUP), at 2:15 pm EST on February 7, 2008

How much is burned?

How much electricity is actually burned? I think you will find there are many better ways to be efficient and save electricity on campus than worrying about whether or not able-bodied individuals use the automatic door openers.

There are some signs on my campus that read something to the effect of, “only use the automatic door opener if you really need it.” Those signs rub me the wrong way and I feel like they do not encourage an open and welcoming environment for individuals who do need to use the automatic door openers. I suggest dropping the issue and focusing your energy elsewhere.

T-bone, at 9:55 am EST on February 8, 2008

Re: Pet Peeve #1

I agree with Agnes. How do you know by outward appearance whether someone has a physical limitation or disability which requires him/her to use the automative door openers? I had a mastectomy 6 years ago and have been instructed to protect my arm to prevent lymphedema. I routinely use those door openers. Are you judging me because I don’t walk with a limp? Focus somewhere else on your quest to “go green.” Do I need to wait outside in the cold and rain just to prove my worthiness?

Out in the Cold, at 4:50 pm EST on February 8, 2008

pet peeve #1

A colleague of mine who is in a wheelchair has long complained about this — the more people who use these openers, the more likely (and sooner) the mechanics will wear out. Leaving him (and anyoen who really needs it) unable to open the door. I’ve never used them unless I’ve had to ever since.

Annie, at 2:10 pm EDT on June 25, 2008

No snowpack???

First, nice jab at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. That’s how you gain credibility from the persuadable on an issue.

I’m in Madison, Wisconsin, where the current temperature is seven below zero in the midst of a statistically normal winter for temperatures. With just over 75 inches of snow, Madison is less than one inch from the all-time snowfall record. And that will come tomorrow.

I recognize this is a point observation, but most of our data here is cross-sectional and not truly time-series in a significant sense. I’m happy to keep my apartment set at 55 degrees during the day and 64 at night, but let’s not rush to judgment on global warming. What is more important is taking fiscally responsible measures to conserve energy.

Well, I’ve got to scrape ice off the inside of my windows before the temperature bottoms out some twenty-odd degrees below normal tonight.

Robert, PhD Student, at 10:40 pm EST on February 10, 2008

Global warming

I read with interest Mr. Rendell’s hit piece on O’Connor, including the non-political statement of the non-political author that she was “somewhat to the right of the Sheriff of Nottingham.” That alone puts paid to his foolish implication that the ideological movement identified by O’Connor is not political.

So to quote Mr. Rendell: His “brush is fully tarred and ready for his intended target. Mission accomplished.”

Mr. Rendell goes on to downplay the example O’Connor gave of Philosopher Ackerman who felt the need to justify not participating in FtN’s extravaganza.

Of course, the salient facet of Ackerman’s non-participation is the one that Mr. Rendell skips over, even though it hides in the wide open: it is that she felt the need to formally justify her non-participation.

If Ackerman feels that the “invitation” by FtN really comes with as little pressure as the Viagra adds she receives, why did she need to justify her non-participation? Or, has she taken the time to write justifications for why she doesn’t respond to other junk mail, like the Viagra adds?

Contra Mr. Rendell, the science supporting AGW is indeed unsettled, catchy phrases by the National Academy of Sciences not withstanding.

First, science is not subject to the democratic process: one fact can destroy a consensus. Beyond this, Michael Crichton gives several examples of “scientific consensus” being woefully, horribly wrong, along with the tragic consequences of the wrongness, in his classic essay Aliens Cause Global Warming.

Second, there’s actually a great many scientists who have reservations about whether or not humans cause GW (see Senator Inhofe’s list, or the list of 60 or so Canadian Scientists who urged Canada’s PM Stephen Harper consider that there is a discrepancy between history and today’s computer models.

Third, some, like Bjorn Lomborg, will concede that humans are the cause of Global Warming, but /a>believe there are far more beneficial ways to allocate resources than to try and slow or stop it. Fourth, global warming is happening on other bodies in our solar system at the exact same nanosecond in the Solar System’s 4.2 Billion Year history. This argues against human generated CO2 being required for GW, and in favor of some other driving force (say like sun spots and cosmic radiation). Fifth, there are even who believe the evidence now points towards global cooling. (Link, link.) Believe me, I could go on and on, but my point is incontestable: the science is very much in dispute, and any “initiative” aimed at college students that doesn’t take into account both sides of the argument is pure political propaganda.And that is scary.

Minerva, at 6:55 pm EST on February 11, 2008

Many IHE readers know Erin O’Connor as a thoughtful, astute, and sharp-witted English professor who has written incisive higher education commentary in various forums over the past six years. Some may also know that the lively comments section of her Critical Mass blog attracts participants from across the political spectrum, testament to the fact that even those who disagree with Dr. O’Connor still respect her cogent reasoning, her elegant writing, and her evenhanded tone. She is hardly someone with a reputation for militant extremism — quite the opposite.

That a pseudonymous writer who launched his blog twelve days ago can accuse Dr. O’Connor of being “politically to the right of the Sheriff of Nottingham” is unremarkable in itself, given how neophyte bloggers commonly try to earn stature by trolling established figures. But that such ad hominem invective enjoys Inside Higher Ed’s imprimatur, and presumably meets with the approval of IHE’s editors, almost beggars belief.

Dr. O’Connor may not have the institutional backing of a major higher education daily — but she has the courage to publish under her own name, and the civility to engage in open, respectful debate with those whose opinions differ from her own. “G. Rendell,” his Beowulfian nom de guerre aside, would rather envisage himself as a modern-day environmental Robin Hood, slinging arrows at imagined Sheriffs of Nottingham from the gloomy safety of his protective Sherwood Forest. But IHE only discredits itself by sanctioning such cowardly pseudonymous attacks on individual professors. Surely its editors should know better?

Maurice Black, at 6:50 am EST on February 12, 2008

More on Your Hit Piece

G Rendell wrote: “For anyone with time and interest, I recommend that you follow Minerva’s links. Also follow the links in the documents she lists. Research the individual writers, and draw your own conclusions.”

Excuse me? Did you really write: “Research the individual writers, and draw your own conclusions.”

Translation: The message is unreliable because the messenger is not to be trusted.

This, of course, is the logical fallacy of “poison the well” (http://tinyurl.com/jve2t).

G. Rendell wrote: “If some consider strong opinion (certainly expressed no more inflammatorily than the O’Connor piece, itself) more important than explicit errors of fact, logical non sequiturs and rhetorical guilt by random association, then we’ll agree to disagree.”

No more inflammatorily? Yo! Earth to Rendell! Your rant was one long ad Hominem. The very first pixels damned O’Connor for being “somewhat to the right of the Sheriff of Nottingham.”

I defy you to point to any such ad Hominem in any of O’Connor’s works.

Are you unable or unwilling to distinguishing between an attack on an argument and an attack on a person? Which would be worse?

First, you attacked O’Connor personally, and now you’re trying to attack the sources I provided — not on the basis of their facts or logic, but because in your opinion, they cannot be trusted!

I haven’t read all of O’Connor’s stuff, but I’ve read a lot of it, and I’ve never, ever seen her launch anything like the vicious ad Hominem attack you have. She goes after ideas, not people.

You owe her an apology.

G Rendell wrote: “As regards my use of a pseudonym, please be aware that I’m administrative staff, not tenured faculty.”

Which conveniently allows you to launch ad Hominem attacks against a person’s reputation from the safe shield of anonymity.

Shame on you, and shame on IHE for sanctioning your hit piece.

minerva, at 7:40 pm EST on February 14, 2008