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/

Week 2 Post!

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Why or why not? To answer this question, you must explain what you believe it means to be an environmentalist. How does an environmentalist think and act? If you are not an environmentalist, do you have explicit reasons for rejecting the label? If so, enumerate the reasons and explain them. If not, speculate on why you have never thought about whether you are/are not an environmentalist.
After you discuss your personal orientation toward environmentalism, think about the concept more broadly. What factors do you think encourage or discourage people in today’s society from?


Do I consider myself an environmentalist?  My first reaction is to say, "I am absolutely a person who loves the environment".  This does not mean that I am completely an environmentalist.  However, any short answer demands an explanation.  What is an environmentalist exactly?  In my opinion, an environmentalist is someone who subscribes to the philosophy that the stability of nature in all regards should be held to the highest standards of importance, safety, and sustainability.  An environmentalist is someone who cares about everything from recycling to wetlands to global warming to trash in the oceans to fracking and is not afraid to stand firm on the side of nature when facing important political and economic issues.   

This sounds like a wonderful set of personal values to hold and it seems almost counter intuitive and selfish that someone might not agree 100% with these ideals.  However, the reality is that while I love the environment, I love sustainability, I love preservation, and I have a chronic obsession with baby animals (especially baby seals), I am also a political and economic realist.  Maybe it is the Political Scientist in me, but when I look at the world I see things in terms of cost and effect.  What does that mean exactly, cost and effect?  To be more precise, it means that when I look at the debate over energy use for example, I know that sustainable energy is the future and that oil and coal is terrible for the environment.  However I also know that our current technology is still very underdeveloped and we only have about 8% of our energy needs met with alternative energy like hydro power and less than 1% met with solar.  At the present campaigning against coal is, for the most part, simply illogical.  It would completely destroy the way our economy and society works and the sad fact is that Americans and the world in general just isn't ready for that to happen yet.  It's too soon.  In the future this may change, but until then, I cannot bring myself to step onto that bandwagon.  While the environment is very important, humanity is also important and we cannot always simply backtrack and transition ourselves as easily as we might like to believe. 

This leads us onto a more broad point:  Environmentalism as a whole.  In today's world, environmentalism is overwhelmingly embraced by the youth and young adults, people who fall between 20-35 years old.  As we look at the older and older age brackets, we see that people begin to become more cautious and hesitant when hearing the call to stand up for the environment. 

We can try and attribute this difference to many different factors, the most simple being age and the most complex being difference in the quality of news that distributes information to these age groups.  I would be going out on a limb but I would hypothesize that people who want The Daily Show and read Al-Jazeera would be more likely to be in favor of the environment than someone who only watched Fox News.  While this is not true for everyone, what I am trying to say is that people form different opinions based on the type of news and information they gather.  If they listen to only one news outlet that is heavily biased towards/against environmentalism, their personal opinions will be heavily impacted in whichever direction that particular news outlet decides to lean.  

Another important factor is special interest.  Even though there are many advocates for cyber activism and hackivism, someone who works as a IT security specialist for a fortune 500 company would feel much differently about the issue than a low income student who occasionally pirates music or movies off the internet.  Likewise there are a plethora of people with just as many different interests and opinions concerning the environment.  While I cannot speak for large big name MNC's like BP for example (Hey, they're people too!), a middle class farmer who finds out that he's sitting on a goldmine of shale oil will have a much different opinion to fracking than a college student or a scientist.  Social standing, location, economics, political affiliation, ethics and morality, all of these are crucial factors that are considered by everyone when the issue of the environment becomes a top priority.

We must always remember that the environment is not a toy.  It is not a cash-cow resource.  And it is not something to be taken for granted.  Ever.  However, that being said, the lifeblood of hundreds of millions of people worldwide depend on the resources that we extract from it every day.  A passionate environmentalist will always argue in favor of the environment before mankind.  However, I cannot currently call myself a passionate environmentalist.  I am a human being who loves the environment, I treasure it, I respect it, and I wish it no harm. I recognize that change is slow, progress is gradual, and destruction is sometimes permanent.   However I also acknowledge the value of human life, the value and necessity of hard work and toil and reward and the benefits that we enjoy every day because we dominate and bend the environment to our will.

It is my humble opinion that we should always seek the middle ground.  We should always consider the question, is what we're doing truly necessary?  If many people depend on us then what we are doing truly does matter.  In cases such as that we must then seek to select the Safest and least damaging route that we can, so that we can begin to repair and coexist with what we have left.


- Chris Postell

Hello everyone,

My name is Chris Postell!!
I'm 20 years old and a 3rd year Political Science Major at the University of Cincinnati.  This blog is for my Environmental Policy class and for any in-general newsworthy relevant things that I may find.

Things about me:  I love traveling, music, friends, smiles, and have a delightful addiction to League of Legends.