Week 13 - My Carbon Footprint!

As per instructed, I took the Carbon Footprint quiz online at :
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/



Turns out, mine isn't all THAT bad.

As you can see, my lifestyle would consume 3.7 earths if everyone lived like me.  On the downside, that's 2.7 more Earths than we have.  On the plus side, it means that I live MUCH more eco-friendly than most of my fellow Americans.  This is probably due to the fact that I don't own a car, and that I walk everywhere.  If there is a place that is too far for me to walk, I would usually ask a friend to take me there.  Another fact that is on my side is that I live in a small two story apartment with two other roommates.  We all tend to live pretty humble lifestyles and while we have the funds to spruce things up if we so desire, we're not exactly keen on living the dangerous, adventurous, yolo college lifestyle.  We're very down to earth people!

These results were pretty much expected of me, although what's really cool for my situation is that my carbon footprint has actually gone down!  I took a very similar test, it might have been the same one, my Senior year in High School for my Environmental Science class.  In that particular experiment, I found that my lifestyle consumed 6.7 Earths.   This was in part to the fact that I lived with my family of four, and we live in a fairly large sized house and I was driven to school everyday and I took the bus too.  

I don't think I'll be able to reduce this footprint much more though.  I don't drive, I live on 25$ of food a week (a self imposed budget), my roommates and I rarely use the heating / AC, and I try not to waste food and other resources.  At this point of my life this is most likely the lowest that my carbon footprint will ever reach.  It's a bittersweet realization that the lowest I can get while functioning in society is 3.7, but I really don't see much alternative.  

One should still strive to lower their footprint though.  As we discussed in class, our footprints are tied to this notion of "greening the system".  The lower our footprint, the more green the 'system' or the world around us becomes.  The more conscious effort we make to live sustainable  the more sustainable things become.  Our lives become molded to reflect our actions, products we use become redesigned to mirror our desires.  Basically in a nutshell, the more effort we make into trying to live better, the better our lives around us actually become (in an environmental sense)    

Week 11 - Fielding Climate Change in Ohio

In 2012 Ohio, Farmers are hurting.  Changes in the climate are most likely the culprit.  And farmers are making sure that their voice is heard.

Upon researching ways that the cities and state of Ohio were working to address climate change, I wanted to look for something that addressed a big picture issue.  As a POLI SCI student, I'm very interested in the big picture as per how things work the way that they do, why they work that way, who is behind it all, and who benefits from it.  With all that in mind, I was able to find a great group that has been pressing - and succeeding - the issue of climate change.  Farmers.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/22/723751/ohio-farmers-work-to-keep-climate-change-on-the-agenda-the-drought-moved-the-needle/?mobile=nc

Ohio is a unique state.  Its cities are industrial and for the most part, fairly successful.  Its countryside is predominately agricultural, and as such, the state politicians of Ohio have a great responsibility and self interest in hearing and catering to the problems of farmers.  In 2012, crops in Ohio were expected to be down 29% and in some cases, "farmers are seeing yields 60% below last year".  This is a huge problem for Ohio's economy and the well being of thousands of Ohioans.  That's a number that cannot be ignored.

However, as Ohio Governor Kasich has said, "This is an unpopular view" - at least among the conservative political elite as well as the far right leaning demographics.  The good news however is, Kasich is one of many Ohio politicians who have reached a tipping point, going so far as to admit publicly that there is in fact a problem with our climate.  This change in policy has been brought on by both incessant lobbying efforts on the side of environmentalists as well as common people experiencing a very real and very clear threat to their well being.  Without the backing of public opinion, the efforts of environmental lobbyists would mean very little and this is a big step forward for the climate change movement in Ohio.  

One can argue numbers as much as they want, however people can no longer deny visible evidence of changing climate patterns.  Heavy rains have increased over 40% in the past years, while overall rainfall has diminished - and drought has increased.  Combine these two facts, and any farmer will tell you, this is a loosing combination.

As popular opinion is quickly changing among the critical and valuable (and traditionally) conservative voting block of farmers - the political climate is still not yet ready.  big donars like the Ohio Coal Industry is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.   However, there is now another 800 pound beast in that same room staring it back in the face - and that is the changing climate.

Are these efforts enough though?

The short answer is no.  The longer answer is nooooooo.  Public opinion must grow on itself and reach very high levels before it can challenge big industries such as Coal and Oil on the political battlefield.  Education and awareness are the right ways to go, and while they are slow to spread, they are a reliable and steady way of gaining support among Ohioans.  Eventually it will reach a point where politicians will not be able to ignore the overwhelming public opinion.  Farmers are a very important part of Ohio's voice, and they will be heard.

At the same time, environmental groups, firms, and lobbys need to work With farmers to unite them on one front in favor of climate change.  Even if the tide of public opinion shifts in favor of the cause, if it is not united, then it might as well not be there at all.  There is certainly work left to be done, but the past two years have given new hope to this issue.  Just maybe, we'll see some real effort into both change and progress that all of us will be better off for.


Here are more articles that highlight the growing change of opinion among rural Americans on the issue of Climate Change:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-04-08/farmers-respond-to-climate-change

http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/22/12887436-how-climate-change-is-affecting-one-ohio-farm-this-summer?lite

Week 10 - The Dark Side (of Chocolate)

For this journal entry I decided to watch the video about Chocolate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD85fPzLUjo&playnext=1&list=PLOA_8QHMLBOFAQ8K





I love chocolate.  I enjoy everything from Hershey's Chocolate, Kit Kat Bars, Chocolate Cake, to Chocolate Chip Ice Cream.  I was curious as to what the consequences of my delight was, and was shocked to say the least.

I had absolutely no idea about the situation within the cocoa fields.  I had no idea about child labor, unsafe conditions, abductions, and all the other darker sides to such a seemingly innocent food.  Before I watched the video, I had heard stories, such as that Hershey's do not actually use as much cocoa anymore and instead substitute it with wax and other choice ingredients.  As I watched the video, it really broke my heart to see children taken from their families to work in a different country, unpaid and unable to get an education, ostracized within a new society.

However, I'm not sure if I will completely change my behavior in terms of eating chocolate.  It is my hope, and probably my own denial, that not every cocoa farm / plantation / factory is like this.  It is my hope that there still exists fair trade within the third world.  After watching this documentary though, it makes sense as to just how companies can afford to market their chocolate so cheaply.  However, I definitely will think three times before buying from Nestle again.  This is a real shame, as kit kat bars are one of my favorite chocolates.  I don't think my little sacrifice will make too much of an impact, but it will give me peace of mind knowing that I am not supporting a terrible terrible practice.

The question remains, how do we address this?  How do we deal with child exploitation?  My initial reaction is to say "It is difficult, and that we can't fully deal with the issue".  Most of us Americans and Europeans don't really think about where their food comes from.  Often times, we're too busy to think about it, and even  if we're not, we don't want to.  There's that scary feeling in the back of our heads that whisper about things that we don't want to focus on - and mostly, they are right.  I guess this is just another case and point example of that.

The solution to this epidemic can only be found through education and awareness.  Sadly, this is something that is hard to spread.  The first step could be as simple as sharing this video, hosting conferences on college campuses, and bringing companies into the political limelight.  Things like this have been done before, as we saw with the Hark and Engel protocol that was legislated in D.C.  These first initiatives have brought attention to the issue, and in the future, new incentives will help close the issue.  That is my hope, but one must work both at the top and the bottom levels to instigate change.

Week 9 - Recycling

Back in 2010, UC revealed its Recycling initiative, called All Recycling.  Previous to this date, the University did not have a solution to all the recyclable waste that was generated on campus.  This program created All Recycling trash cans that would be placed throughout all buildings and residence halls on and around campus

Since then, the All Recycling program has been a tremendous success.  According to UC'd main website, "In 2010, the University of Cincinnati recycled just over 4,600 tons of material, an increase of about 23 percent over the year before when UC recycled more than 3,700 tons of material. The most commonly recycled materials are paper, cardboard, plastics, metals and glass. Other recycled items include tires, oil, batteries, electronics, carpet and more."  This is wonderful news and began the program off on a strong right foot.

So what exactly did the All Recycling program entail?  What is accepted by the University as recycling under this program?  I did a check on UC's main page and looked up the All Recycling program and found this informative info graphic     

As you can see, this is a fairly large and encompassing list, which is a good thing.  These bins are located everywhere on campus, and are easily accessible to both students, faculty, and other campus staff.  Since its implementation in 2010, UC has been able to reduce our trash waste by up to 42%!   I wondered what the most common items that UC recycled were, and found a report by M. B. Reilly.  In her report, Mary claimed that, "The most commonly recycled materials are paper, cardboard, plastics, metals and glass. Other recycled items include tires, oil, batteries, electronics, carpet and more."

As a student at UC, who became a member of our body in 2010 - so when the All Recycle program was adopted - I was unable to see what life was like before we had this program, although talking to friends who are both Seniors and R.A.'s, life in the dorms has been a much cleaner place.  One such RA, David Cowens, remembered how much messier dorms were back when he was a freshman.  There were no recycling bins on some floors and bottles and pizza boxes and beer cans ended up being thrown in trashcans until they overfilled onto the floors. 

Backing up a few years to when I was a Freshman in Daniels Hall, I remember seeing our trash bins fill up multiple times per week.  Each floor had one or two large Recycling bins and they were almost always full.  Every night it seemed, they would get emptied by the cleaning staff (a wonderful group of amazing people).  It always blew my mind as to how messy a bunch of college freshmen guys and girls could be, but looking back again, I realize these were All Recycle bins.  And they made our lives so much cleaner.  They really did make all the difference in the world.  

Last summer I worked in the dorms as a Conference Assistant.  What that meant was that it was my job to help assist the incoming freshmen during their orientation week.  During this time, I was in charge of Siddall, and saw roughly 2000 incoming freshmen.  Each of these freshmen spent a night in our building, and it was my duty to help keep the dorm in working order.  Thanks to multiple recycling bins on each floor, my job was made much easier, and the issue of trash and waste was never really a problem.  Looking back, those were All Recycle bins, and even for people who were in the building for only a single night at the time, every week I would watch them get filled up.

Looking back on my own experiences as well as others' at UC, the All Recycle program has truly done wonders for the health and well being of our campus.  When you first take a look at this program, it doesn't seem like anything out of the ordinary.  Just simply some trash bins scattered throughout campus.  And then you realize that they are almost everywhere, there are hundreds of them on campus.  And they really do make a difference.  It's one of those things that most people would acknowledge as if it were common sense if you asked them, but I feel like a lot of people either don't know about this or take it for granted.  When I sent a few of my friends who worked in the dorms as R.A.'s messages via Facebook asking them about this, most of them didn't even know the name of the program, although they assumed that UC had one.  This is definitely a very good initiative by UC that has created a great deal of good on campus!

Work Cited

"Recycling @ UC", University of Cincinnati, copyright 2012, http://www.uc.edu/af/facilities/services/recycling.html.

"Recycling Grows at UC - By Tons at a Time", M.B. Reilly,  4/20/2011 http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=13485.

Week Seven (Halfway There!)

Is there an environmental policy problem currently being addressed at the state level which you
think could be better solved by federal-level regulation? Conversely, is the federal government trying
to solve an environmental policy problem better addressed by the states? Identify and describe an
environmental policy problem which you think is being addressed by the wrong level of
government. Explain why you think the problem could be better regulated by a different level, laying
out the pros and cons of switching to a different regulatory approach. Cite class readings and other
sources (e.g., news articles that help you describe the policy problem) as necessary. Your narrative
should be 6–9 paragraphs.


The battle between states-rights and the long arm of the federal government has been going on for decades.  It has its origins in the writings of the 10th amendment which states that "all powers not specified to the Federal Government are given to the States".  Whenever the federal government announces a new set of legislation, the argument and battle for states rights begins again.  Of course, I don't necessarily think that this is a battle that should not take place.  Preserving the system of checks and balances is a critical part of what helps keep this nation strong.  However, at times, there arises a set of issues that are so essential to the well being of all, that the best solution is a national law.  Environmental policies are a perfect example of this necessity.

Critics can argue this debate a thousand and one different ways, and I have no intention of adding to this debate.  One can look at countries with vastly powerful centralized governments, like China, and note that their environmental situation is the same as, if not actually worse than, ours.  However proponents of big government can point at China and cite the massive leaps and bounds of progress that they have been making.  China is the worlds leader in investments in alternative energy.  It outspends the United States on solar power spending almost 100 to 1, and because of its strong central authority, China was able to go ahead and build one the world's largest hydro power dams, the Three Gorges Dam - a 20$ Billion+ dollar project, making it, to the best of my understanding, the largest alternative energy project in the world.

Here is my argument:  While allowing states to make their own laws can be beneficial in certain situations for certain states, it will also put others in a very bad position, as each state must balance its economic and industrial as well as social duties often before considering their duties to the environment.  The problem that I'm focusing on is insignificant rules and weak floors in the instance of environmental disasters as well as interstate problems.  If one state comes across with weak laws, all surrounding states have the potential to be adversely effected.

Lets look at one particular environmental problem that is growing to become a potentially huge and devastating environmental as well as economic disaster.  This is a problem that is relatively untouched by mainstream and media environmentalists:  Water.  Water shortages, to be precise.

On February 22nd, the NYTimes published an article online that highlighted the dangerously thin snowpeaks in the mountains this year.  What does this entail exactly and why does this matter with environmental policy?
"Lakes are half full and mountain snows are thin, omens of another summer of drought and wildfire. Complicating matters, many of the worst-hit states have even less water on hand than a year ago, raising the specter of shortages and rationing that could inflict another year of losses on struggling farms.

Reservoir levels have fallen sharply in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. The soil is drier than normal. And while a few recent snowstorms have cheered skiers, the snowpack is so thin in parts of Colorado that the government has declared an “extreme drought” around the ski havens of Vail and Aspen."

This is a problem because not only does the prospect of water shortages threaten the well being of the physical environment, in the sense of wildfires and droughts, this also will effect the livelyhoods of millions of Americans who will be forced to cope with water shortages and crop failures.  This then in turn will lead to higher costs of water and food, and an increased cost to the standard of living in a time where, for many people, money is already tight as it is.  

While state politicians are racing and struggling to come up with emergency funds in case of disaster, politicians in Washington - the one place where relief could flow from most freely - have only proposed 20$ million of potential disaster funds for the many states that would be affected.  In other words, Washington doesn't seem all that concerned  and indeed with their current political battles that are being fought.  However, its more of a case that Washington politicians don't know that this is going on behind their backs.  

In Colorado alone, last year wildfires caused over 500$ million in damages, and droughts caused tens of millions in crop failures.  This is a heavy burden for a state to shoulder and only slows economic growth.  The federal government has the funds and it has the manpower to enact and enforce sweeping legislation that would solve this potential disaster before it surfaces.  It has the power to lessen the burden of state economies that are still trying to get off their knees.  

This is a clear and cut example as to why the Federal Government should be able to impose nationwide environmental protection and legislation.  There are some issues that are bigger than states, that effect millions of people.  The job of the federal government is to look after the citizens of the United States, and I believe this is a prime opportunity for the government to do just that.


Sources:  
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4090/why-the-federal-government-not-states-should-regulate-the-environment

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/in-drought-stricken-heartland-snow-is-no-savior.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&smid=fb-share

Week 4: A Frame of Reference

The Sun and the Winds are free.  As a species inhabiting the Earth, we have used energy sources for tens of thousands of years, some renewable, and some not.  As we have grown and progressed as a race, so have our energy needs - branching out past a point of sustainability.  

However, we have begun to delve into the alternatives.  We have found ways to begin curbing our addiction to our destructive habits of over consumption.  We have found ways that can begin to give the world time to return what has been destroyed, and recreate that which was taken by man.  Of course I am talking about Alternative Energy.  But not just alternative energy, I am talking about the topic that is in and of itself the greater issue:  Energy economy.  I want to address the current system that exists, and I want to bring attention to one particular means of beginning to solve that problem, which lies in Solar Energy.   

Before we can talk about the solution we need to address a frame of reference that sheds light on the problem itself.  I want to talk about a documentary that really changed my outlook on the world and really hit home the message that Industry and Energy and the Environment are inseparably connected.  Edward Burtynsky: Manufactured landscapes is a documentary about a photographer's trip to China and his investigation into a world of industry, trash, consumption, energy, and everything in between.  Edward Burtynsky tries to remain as objective as possible.  His goal in the documentary is simply to portray the reality of the world as it is - and lets the viewer make their own decisions.  However, he had this to say about environmentalists, "I think the environmental movement has failed in that it’s used the stick too much; it’s used the apocalyptic tone too much; it hasn't sold the positive aspects of being environmentally concerned and trying to pull us out.”  While I think it's a completely fair tactic for environmentalists to use - because it's a real threat, he does make a point.  Environmentalists can't simply say "live better or the world as we know it will end", that's not a good way to motivate people to change their lives.   People don't often respond to negative reinforcement. 

    What Burtynsky offers is an alternative.  His message doesn't carry the tone of an agenda, it doesn't initially scare 'non-believers' off.  He shows them, 'hey, this is what our world does to support your lifestyle'.  He shows pictures and footage of literal mountains and small hills of coal that are waiting to be burned at coal plants.  He shows footage of people whose entire life hood is digging through trash heaps of computer waste to look for gold to melt down and resell.  He shows shipwreckers, people who dismantle old ships for a meager living.  He shows the children taking apart these ships, wading waist deep in oil, disposing of the byproduct of a globalized culture. 


This is our first frame.  This is our starting point.  Burtynsky shows us the grim reality behind a world that we take for granted every day, that we don't even pause to think about.  This is a world that employs hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people, and their industry fuels millions more jobs and markets around the world.  Any aspiring environmentalists needs to understand the world in which we live, and how it works, before we can attempt to create significant change. 

Our second frame dives into the implementation of a solution, not a perfect solution, but perhaps the glimmer of light that you see at the end of a tunnel.  To this we turn to Alternative Energy; solar energy in particular.  On the other side of the world from China and Burtynsky's research, a company in the United States created a major breakthrough in the world of sustainable energy.  A small company created the world's most efficient commercial solar panel ever.  The website Treehugger.com wrote an article on the company NatCore, a company that created a solar panel that is 99.7% efficient.  Why is this important and why am I mentioning this article as a frame of reference?“  One of the ways this matters, said Chuck Provini, the company’s CEO, “is that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the electricity you get on a sunny day vs. a cloudy day. Diffused light won’t matter that much.”  In the world of solar energy, this is huge.  This is two steps forward onto creating a technology that can afford to compete with coal and natural gas. 

You see, the problem with alternative energy is that for the most part, it's just not efficient enough.  And if it is, it's too expensive.  NatCore has just made enormous progress in solving that first problem, and where there is opportunity there is industry.  Such a transition will not be overnight, nor will it happen over the course of a year.  For change to happen, it will have to slowly happen everywhere, branching out from one place and quickly spreading.  Burtynsky's frame of reference not only showed us reality, but he showed us that fossil fuels provide the foundation for millions of people's lives around the world.  Taking that away will cause untold backlashes and unforeseen consequences.  But if we can use NatCore's technology to one day replace mountains of coal with a sea of solar panels, fueling an industry of alternative energy rather than conventional means, then the world will be that much better off. 

Our second frame of reference provided us with an alternative to what we currently have.  But there is a missing piece.  We need to be able to connect the two because as it is, they are not necessarily directly related.  This third frame of reference needs to deal with economics.  Costs, risks and analysis.  Cold hard numbers that support and justify a transition that we know needs to happen, but not how.  The answer lies in the World Future Council, an organization that seeks to answer those very questions.  

The WFC published a document called The Monetary Cost of the Non-Use of Renewable Energies.  When dealing with an industry, the obvious questions are costs, markets, and profits.  But they don't take into account the cost of Not doing something.  It's not necessarily straightforward thinking.  Their study concluded that the annual future usage loss (the loss of money in the future by not using alternative energy) from current oil, gas, and coal consumption ranges between 3.2 and 3.4 Trillion *with a T* USD per year.  

3.2 Trillion dollars per year is a very big frame of reference to work with.  Those are the kinds of numbers that many governments cant even handle, yet these are conservative estimates.  How did the WFC arrive at these numbers?  One of the factors considers first the environmental damages of using fossil fuels, as well as costs incurred by the Lack of fossil fuels available in the future.  In layman's terms, as there becomes less of X, the price of X increases, and this is one of the things the WFC took into account in their study using projected models and existing data trends on the global average and US value of these fossil fuel commodities.  The emphasis here is on the difference in cost between alternative energy (like solar power) and fossil fuels.  One has a high initial cost but carries a low maintenance cost.  The other, fossil fuels, has a lower initial cost, and carries an increasingly more expensive upkeep cost as time increases, eventually becoming economically unsustainable.  

Following this pattern, along with other models, the WFC came to the conclusion that not switching to alternative energies is costing the economy roughly 8-9 billion dollars per day in terms of future costs as well as environmental damages and the value lost in natural resources that cannot be replaced and will not be available in the future.  This is a very powerful economic frame of reference, and no matter which side you stand on the issue of alternative energy, is something that needs to be considered.  

As I said in the beginning of this blog post, the Sun and the Wind are free.  The earth is not.  I have tried to address the problem of fossil fuel use as well as highlighting proposed solutions that address the current status quo, the future of alternative energy, and the economics that link the two.  Compiled together, I think these three articles and perspectives create a unique frame of reference with which to view not just an important issue, but also the bigger picture.  


Links:

Edward Burtynsky:  Manufactured Landscapes
http://www.ted.com/talks/edward_burtynsky_on_manufactured_landscapes.html


NatCore's Black Silicon Solar Cell
http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/black-solar-cell-absorbs-997-all-light.html

World Future Council Study
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Climate_and_Energy/Cost_of_non_use_of_RE.pdf


Additional Links: (not used in blog post but relevant)
Edward Burtynsky Transcript
http://dotsub.com/view/1436b537-6f4a-4311-8780-f500127621e3/viewTranscript/eng
US Gov Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change at a Reasonable Cost
http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/fs_climate_costs_980731.html

Week 3: Government and Action and UC

The University of Cincinnati has a variety of environmental initiatives, many of which are described
at http://www.uc.edu/af/pdc/sustainability/campus_initiatives.html. In class we have talked/are
talking about the three general types of environmental policy instruments. Describe one UC
environmental program that uses government regulation as its primary instrument, one that uses
market-based approaches, and one that uses law as its primary instrument. In this write up,
“government” regulation can encompass policy made by the university. Similarly, university policy
can be considered “law.” If you cannot find a UC environmental program that fits one of the
instrument types, you may instead select a policy measure pursued by Cincinnati’s city government.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of each approach with specific reference to the
UC/Cincinnati programs you are describing. For example, writing that government-based
approaches may not be cost effective is insufficient. If you are discussing UC’s new Trayless Dining
policy, you should discuss whether or not this regulatory approach appears to be cost-effective for
the university. Cite class readings about environmental policy instrument choice and other sources as
necessary. Your narrative should be 6–9 paragraphs.


One of the University of Cincinnati's best qualities lie in its student body.  Our student body is informed.  Our student body is passionate.  Our student body is active.  When it comes to environmentalism and green initiative, students at the University of Cincinnati cut no corners in bringing our concerns and initiatives to the ears of the administration.

This topic is a perfect opportunity to talk about a group that I am a part of that saw a problem, took an initiative, and arguably influenced school policy.  I am a member of LEAP which stands for Leaders for Environmental Awareness and Protection.  Back in the spring of 2012, LEAP supported a group called UC Beyond Coal in an effort to not only raise awareness about the carbon footprint that UC was creating, but also the potential that our campus had to create a bigger, more positive effect on the environment around us by reducing that carbon footprint.

The University of Cincinnati burns coal.  Many people would assume this to be common sense - and it is - but at the same time, there were hundreds of students and faculty that did not know this.  The Central Utility Plant, located on 3000 Glendora Avenue, is home to "two Solar Titan combustion turbines, a Dresser-Rand steam turbine, five York chillers, two Trane chillers, two ERI heat recovery steam generators and two Nebraska boilers" (UC Facilities Page).  This plant provides power to not only the main campus, but also to six nearby hospitals.  The University also runs a second power plant on the East Campus.  This smaller power plant houses two boilers and two coal burners which were used for the sole purpose of providing power to the campus.

Now in 2012, UC invested a rather large sum of money, a few million dollars to be more precise, in converting their East Campus coal burners to run on as they described, 80% renewable materials (wood chips) and 20% coal.  This sounds great, but we all soon discovered, the plant wasn't exactly operating at the levels that it was saying it was

At this point members of LEAP, many of whom were already directly involved with UC Beyond Coal, joined the group in a public protest and began gathering signatures, about 3000 of them, and we dropped them off at the then president of UC Greg Williams' office.  Our goal was for the University to close both of its coal plants and to instead opt for a more cleaner initiative.

Now what does this story have to do with government intervention and regulation?  During this time, the University had another organization to worry about in regards to its carbon footprint:  The EPA.  According to new laws and EPA regulations, the University of Cincinnati was required to cut its carbon footprint as well as fossil fuel emissions by 2015, when these new provisions were to go into effect.  The new rules themselves came in the form of the EPA MACT act, the Maximum Achievable Control Technology act.  In order to comply with these regulations the University, only a few short weeks before the Beyond Coal movement had marched into President Williams' office, had announced that it would in fact shut down the first of the two coal burners by 2015.  Riding on the wave of this good news, UC Beyond Coal's demands to Williams was for the University to make a pledge to close down the second boiler by no later than 2019.

In this scenario, the EPA introduced new regulations that forced the University to reconsider and revise its carbon footprint and usage of coal.  The EPA used mandatory measures, enforced by the promise of monetary penalties in the case of non compliance, to help push the University to divest in coal.  The major player here was the government, but there was another player as well working towards the same goal:  the students.  And sometimes, that can help make all the difference.

Here's a link to the Press release made by members of UC Beyond Coal!
http://www.wearepowershift.org/blogs/uc-beyond-coal-members-enter-office-president-and-make-big-ask

and here are their facebook groups!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/leapUC/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/124588454298465/