The $12 million initiative is part of the University’s $60 million effort to “advance education and research related to energy, environment and sustainability,” according to a press release from the Chancellor’s office.

Wrighton foresees both environmental and economic benefits to the University’s plan.
“Despite these difficult financial times, the University and these lead corporate sponsors realize that investment in such research will benefit the region and the world in the long run,” Wrighton said in the press release. “The knowledge and technology we will be able to create together will over time mean lower costs to customers and global environmental improvement.”

Through the initiative, the University hopes to conduct several studies, including those that explore the use of oxy-coal combustion, a new technology that replaces air with pure oxygen and potentially allows for a more cost-effective capture of carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream.

Richard Axelbaum, professor of energy, environmental and chemical engineering at the University, will head the initiative. Though coal does release carbon dioxide, the University’s use of coal technology, Axelbaum said, addresses global climate change without adding to greenhouse gas emissions, which has been blamed for global warming.

“There are various techniques that can be implemented to actually capture carbon dioxide and store it underground,” Axelbaum said. “There are large cavernous regions under the earth that can store large quantities of carbon dioxide.”

Some students, however, see problems with the project. Senior Lee Cordova, former president of Green Action, feels that the world’s power plants need to be cleaned up to allow for a positive environmental impact.

“I don’t know how much people realize how much coal is used around the world and in Missouri, that something needs to be done to research how to clean those up,” he said.
Cordova added that it will not necessarily be the University’s responsibility to maintain a clean coal standard but rather that the focus on energy and environmental consequence should be on Ameren, the Missouri and Illinois utility company.

“Basically the University has to buy what Ameren provides,” he noted. “I think it’s more of a question of [whether] Ameren is going to adopt this.”

Despite the controversy about the benefits and costs of clean coal technology, Matt Malten, the vice chancellor for sustainability, said that the initiative fulfills a short-term need and indicates a long-term commitment to clean energy.

“We believe that we are going to have to rely on a diversity of fuel sources,” Malten said. “[The initiative] would lower the carbon footprint for the campus. It says we’re dedicated to it and also dedicated to really addressing some tough global issues.”

Malten said that the initiative, which is now focused on research, could lead to the University’s use of clean coal as its main power source.

“One of the key components of it is we’re spending a great amount of time seeing if it’s feasible to put this facility on campus,” he said. “For practical application, we see it as a zero carbon energy source if we can accomplish it.”

In total, 24 research universities worldwide have signed on to the initiative.

Internationally, other countries have begun to rapidly develop coal technologies, including China, which is involved in the initiative.

“China is growing very rapidly, and they are building new coal power plants at the rate of one per week,” Axelbaum said. “China has expertise in this area as well, so by collaborating, we benefit from this interaction as well.”

Pointing to the abundance of coal—more than 150 years of reserves—in the United States, Axelbaum added that research should be dedicated to exploiting this natural resource effectively.

“The supplies of coal are really very large, so it’s not an extreme limitation like there would be on gas or oil,” Axelbaum said. “I’m all for as much alternative energy use as we can. It’s just that there are limits to what we can accomplish.”

But he added that the consortium will encourage efforts to produce clean energy through educational institutions.

“What happens is that we tend to hope there’s a very simple solution to the problem, and it is very complicated,” Axelbaum said. The consortium will make us a little more educated about what the challenges are that we face and chart the appropriate course to address the problem.”

With additional reporting by Ben Sales and Perry Stein

As the international community braces for the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto Protocol—the guiding legal treaty on global greenhouse gas emissions—a group of scholars will meet at Washington University to explore how the United States will assume a role in the future of environmental protection.

The conference, titled “International Climate Change: Post-Kyoto Challenges,” will feature faculty from the law school and engineering school, as well as nationally recognized professors. The conference is open to all University students and members of the local St. Louis community.

“The main purpose is to raise these issues for the campus and local community and to get people talking and thinking about issues of our collective future,” Maxine Lipeles, senior lecturer in the law school and head of the Environmental Law Clinic, said.

Lipeles, who will be moderating the upcoming program, explained that the Kyoto Protocol, which sets greenhouse gas emission limits for all 182 participating countries, will expire in fewer than four years. At this point, no successor treaty has been finalized, though parties are currently negotiating a prospective agreement.

While Kyoto dictates the emissions of most countries, the protocol does not subject the two largest emitters of carbon dioxide—the United States and China—to its provisions.

In 1997, before the treaty was made international law, the U.S. Senate unanimously voted down the Kyoto agreement, since it did not impose emission regulations on China. Many in the global community did not consider China, a “developing country” immediately accountable to the treaty.

Determining how the United States and China figure into an emission reduction program will be central to all future negotiations. This will be the main question that the conference will address, Lipeles said.

“That’s the main focus of this conference: What role should the U.S. and China play in a post-Kyoto agreement?” Lipeles said.

Senior Kelley Greenman, an environmental studies major, has already taken steps to address the issue herself. Last December, she attended the annual United Nations conference on climate change as part of a national student delegation that offered its own policy proposals.

Greenman said she believes that the conference at the University will serve primarily to inform students of an issue that will shape both domestic and international environmental policy.

“We’re not a part of Kyoto and as of yet we’re not a part of post-Kyoto,” Greenman said of the United States. “I think getting the word out and educating people enough so they can make the right decision is imperative.”

Looking back to 1997, when the original Kyoto Protocol was under consideration, Greenman faulted the lack of public knowledge of the consequences of the United States’ refusal to ratify the treaty.

“It was unpopular to the American people and American government, and that’s why people have to get educated now,” Greenman said.

Regardless of how future agreements treat China, Greenman said she believes the United States must sign on.

“Ideally, it will include China,” Greenman said. “But if it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be a part of the agreement.”

Beyond the policy discussion, the conference will also feature a panel on careers in environmental law.

“I think that will be particularly interesting to undergrads to see ways they can make a difference and be successful,” Lipeles said.

Students seeking more information on the climate change program, which will be held in Anheuser Busch Hall and Seigle Hall on Oct. 30, can visit the conference’s Web site at http://law.wustl.edu/higls/indexclimate.asp.

In an effort to provide an alternative worldview to what is widely perceived to be a national liberal-leaning college atmosphere, donors and organizations with right-of-center viewpoints are opening courses that approach topics from a different angle.

At the University of Texas at Austin, conservatives exclusively financed the Program in Western Civilization and American Institutions, which focuses on Western democratic visions of freedom.

Similarly, the Program for Constitutionalism and Democracy at the University of Virginia concentrates solely on exposing freshmen to classical thinkers.

After intensive lobbying by the National Association for Scholars, these projects may soon benefit from federal funding.

The new Higher Education Act, signed into law in August, will allocate grants for academic programs devoted to “traditional American history, free institutions or Western civilization.”

These movements, however, are not limited to state schools whose programs are funded mainly by the government. Brown University hosts a political theory project that features founder of Objectivism Ayn Rand.

Cornell University has finalized a $50,000 grant from the Veritas Fund for Higher Education, which funnels money to these projects. This grant will be used to create the Program on Freedom and Free Societies.

Meanwhile at Washington University, there is no indication that any such initiatives will be undertaken.

“It is antithetical to our mission as a university,” Andrew Rehfeld, professor and chair of the political science department, said.

Rehfeld said he knows of no plans to establish any explicitly conservative academic programs at the University.

“Our first commitment is to say we’re wrong about something,” Rehfeld said of the faculty.

While he does not see the need for any new conservative initiative, Rehfeld is cognizant of the inherent biases of college professors.

“Do professors in their political leanings tend toward the left or the right? My answer is they tend to the left.”

Rehfeld said that he finds this political orientation acceptable in faculty members “so long as they don’t try to proselytize or present in a non-academic way.”

Rehfeld pointed to his own classes as an example of false partisan bias. During the Clinton administration, his students considered him conservative, and conversely, during the Bush administration, he has been perceived as liberal.

“I think that [it’s] irresponsible for a teacher to not admit a bias. The best kind of teacher presents a different view if they have a bias.”

Although the faculty tries its best to keep their political beliefs latent, Rehfeld thinks the greatest discord is among students.

“I find, in general, in classes, politically conservative comments are mocked and ridiculed in discussion,” Rehfeld said.

Evan Zarider, a junior in the business school, thinks the problem of pervasive liberalism on campus originates with the students and not with the faculty.

“Young people at our school are pretty set in their ways and idealistic,” Zarider said. “I don’t think it’s the professors’ fault that most of the student body is liberal and voice liberal opinions, which then are translated into the learning process when you’re in class.”

Despite the strong liberal inclinations among students, Zarider does see an opportunity for the University to expand its curriculum.

“From an administrative standpoint, [the University] could definitely offer a wider range of classes and that would change political discussion on campus,” he said.

“I think it would be nice to have a conservative counterbalance, but I don’t think it’s necessary because I think kids here are smart enough to recognize a bias and form their own opinions,” junior Sam Lipson said.

Lipson agreed with Zarider in that some classes are skewed toward promoting liberal solutions.

“While the professors themselves lean one way or the other, I don’t think they make it difficult for a student with a different opinion to voice his opinion in class,” Lipson said.

Green Action, a Washington University student group with a focus on environmental activism, and Power Vote, a nationwide non-partisan organization that seeks to elevate climate change issues in this year’s election, worked for a common cause. On debate day, affiliated students erected nine-foot windmills around campus, near areas where live television broadcasts were taking place.

“People often times quarantine the environment as its own separate issue and put it so far down the list, and oftentimes they forget that national security and the economy are all totally contingent on the approach we take on the environment,” freshman Emily Averna said.

The joint effort spent the day trying to enlist young voters to pledge their vote for “clean and just energy,” according to Power Vote’s Web site.

Specifically, Power Vote distributed a petition requesting students to support candidates who support “green” jobs, investing in clean energy, cutting global warming pollution, ending dependence on unclean sources of energy and reengaging as a leader in the global community. The national Power Vote goal is one million pledges.

“We are trying to collect one million votes across the nation to show politicians that the youth care about clean energy, green jobs and climate change,” sophomore Peter Murrey, a member of Green Action, said. “Youth are going to be an important part of this election. If [the candidates] don’t talk about the environment, we are not going to listen to them. We’re not going to give them our vote.”

Despite the numerous organizations and interest groups that have converged on campus, the Green Action-Power Vote coalition gained considerable attention from the press, partly due to the presence of miniature windmills on Mudd Field in front of Graham Chapel and in front of Olin Library throughout the day.

“I’m impressed with how into and how responsive [students] are to what Green Action has to say,” junior Alexandra Fine, a Green Action-Power Vote coalition member who aimed for her group to collect 1,000 signatures for Power Vote by the end of the day, said.

The group of over 40 Green Action members had garnered more than 700 pledges at the University, pushing the nationwide total to 187,206 signatures as of Thursday evening, according to the Power Vote Web site.

Fine added that Power Vote has gotten some but not enough attention from local and national media swarming the campus for the vice presidential debate.

“So far we’ve gotten some [media attention] but we deserve a lot more. The issues we’re talking about are those of all youth and anyone who wants a future here.”

The group made appearances on local television affiliates and was featured in a national segment on CBS’s “The Early Show.”

Averna was one of at least a dozen Green Action members who were dressed in green and were holding a windmill at the taping of “The Early Show” at 5:30 a.m. on Thursday.

“We can vocalize the concerns of college students,“ Averna said. “Youth are really invested in our future.”

With additional reporting by Puneet Kollipara, Becca Krock and Johann Qua Hiansen

In what was widely considered to be a referendum on Senator John McCain’s choice for vice president, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, while at times hesitant and often vague in her responses to weighted policy questions, exceeded the low expectations that had been set for her.

Biden, as in previous debates during the presidential primary season, appeared calm and definitive, choosing to make most of his comments directly toward the camera, as if to talk straight to the American people.

Both candidates assumed the roles that their campaigns had promised. Palin, speaking in plain language about issues ranging from the current financial crisis to the war in Iraq to nuclear proliferation, sought to relate every topic to the country’s middle class, of which she repeatedly said she was a part.

Commenting on the current problems on Wall Street, Palin spoke in broad terms.
“We have the opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of lessons out of this and say never again will we be taken advantage of,” Palin said.

Later, Palin struck the same chord regarding the source of the mortgage crisis, saying, “Darn right it was the predator lenders. There was deception and corruption.”

Biden answered his questions with detailed policy prescriptions in an effort to emphasize his knowledge about each issue, and often lashed out at the record of John McCain.
On the economy, Biden attempted at once to paint the differences between the two candidates and to highlight his own credentials.

“So what you had is you had overwhelming ‘deregulation,’” Biden said of the recent financial crisis. “You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself. And while Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation.”

While both candidates played the roles that fit their strengths, their distinct styles indicated the clear differences in background and philosophy.

“We cannot slow up on education, because that’s the engine that is going to give us the economic growth and competitiveness that we need,” Biden said when proposing solutions to the current economic slowdown.

“Energy independence is the key to this nation’s future, to our economic future, and to our national security,” Palin said. “So when we talk about energy plans, it’s not just about who got a tax break and who didn’t. And we’re not giving oil companies tax breaks, but it’s about a heck of a lot more than that.”

At several points during the debate, when Palin appeared hesitant on an issue, she pivoted to the topic with which she has dealt most intimately: energy.

When challenged to refute a claim that Biden made about McCain’s comments toward the mortgage market, Palin responded: “That is not so, but because that’s just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket’s energy ticket, also.”
Following the debate, surrogates for each campaign thought the debate brought out each candidate’s greatest qualities.

“She understood where the country would go, and she had a personable nature,” Lindsay Graham, Senator from South Carolina, said of Palin’s performance. “She related to people at a level that you don’t see in Washington.”

Some Democrats, following the debate, focused on Palin’s scant responses to the environment.

“As Joe Biden pointed out very effectively, you can’t fix the problem unless you point out the source of the problem,” Susan Rice, a foreign policy expert and advisor to Obama, said. “That’s a grave concern, one you would expect she would well understand.”

For every election cycle since 1992, the University has been slated to host the presidential candidates in a debate, and—aside from a last-moment cancellation in 1996—has successfully done so.

The University’s positive record for the events governed the decision by the Commission on Presidential Debates to give it its fifth bid at a debate, this time between vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

“We’ve proven ourselves over and over that we can do this, that this is a great place to host a debate, and that our students are helpful want to be right in the middle of everything,” Associate Vice Chancellor Steve Givens, who chaired the steering committee for the debates in 2000 and 2004, said.

The University showed its ability after its first hosting in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush squared off against then-Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton. After the Commission’s first choice site was unable to hold the debate, it gave the University the opportunity with one week’s notice. Planners had to compress nearly a year’s planning into seven days.

“It was obviously a crazy time, but we proved to ourselves that we could do this and we knew that if given more time, we could do a better job,” Givens said. “We very quickly divided up what needed to be done, and it was a matter of divide and conquer.”

Burnished by its timely performance four years earlier, the University was once again selected to host the debate in 1996. Because the Commission decided to reduce the three debates to two, however, the event was cancelled.

Nonetheless, the Commission contacted the University again in 2000 and 2004. Givens, calling the University the “gold standard” of debate sites, attributed its success to a combination of factors, including a location conducive to such events.

“One of the things that makes this a great site is the [Athletic Complex]. You not only have the debate itself but six to seven hundred media members filling up the rec. gym,” he said.

Looking forward to this year’s debate, Givens said the University’s preparations have not changed due to this one’s featuring the vice presidential candidates. Because of expanding Internet media, moreover, he predicts that this debate will feature more journalists than previous years.

“Every usable space in the AC will be taken over entirely,” Givens said.

Alumnus Philip Sholts, who graduated in 2008 and currently works in St. Louis, remembers the 2004 debate as a time of elevated student excitement and minimal security hassles.

“There were a few checkpoints around campus where security guards or police officers would check your ID to verify you were a Wash. U. student,” Sholts said. “But it was never really a big issue.”

Sholts noted that all streets surrounding the University were shut down on the day of the debate. Others do not recall significant security concerns in the past.

“To be honest, the security didn’t really interfere with me at all as a student,” Rachel Fitz, another alumnus who viewed the 2004 debate first-hand as a freshman, said. “On the day of the debate, parking on campus was impossible, but that was to be expected.”

The Commission on Presidential Debates used Washington University students who bore some resemblance to the vice presidential candidates and moderator Gwen Ifill in a rehearsal walk-through to ensure that the sound and lighting were functioning properly for today’s live event.

The University held two separate walkthroughs.

During the first, at 10 a.m., junior Danielle Porter stood in for Gwen Ifill, junior Madeline Thoman for Gov. Sarah Palin and senior Joe Cavanagh for Sen. Joe Biden.

During the later walkthrough at 4 p.m., senior Lydia Beasley stood in for Ifill, senior Julia Latash for Palin and junior Danny Gaynor for Biden.

The student stand-ins made up non-political debate questions and both “candidates” weighed in on the topics for up to three or four minutes.

“It’s been a lot of fun to be up there, [to] be where the candidates are going to be, to practice the walk, the wave, the handshake the choreographed movements,” Latash said. “[We covered] hard-hitting issues that affect everyday Americans like us.”

Correction

The headline of an earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that students stood in for Barack Obama, not Sarah Palin. Student Life regrets the error.

That, at least, is what the Students’ Brewing Society is trying to prove.

Hatched by a group of friends who discovered their love for brewing beer while spending this past summer together in St. Louis, the new student group hopes to convince the Office of Student Activities (OSA) that its mission—brewing beer while promoting responsible drinking—is worthy of funding and recognition as an on-campus group.

“I’m personally interested in the brewing, and the culture that brewing creates,” senior Kate Keenan, president and co-founder of the group, said. “It’s a creative process, a neat skill to learn, and another aspect is there is nothing wrong with drinking—it’s about learning how to do it responsibly.”

After learning how to brew this summer, Keenan and her boyfriend rounded up several of their friends to start comparing the different styles of beer they had created. The 10-member group, which has so far found funding independent of the OSA, ferments its product in the basement of Keenan’s off-campus apartment using a five-gallon stockpot and fresh ingredients.

This week, Keenan and other representatives from the group will interview with the OSA and present its mission statement, which will include a focus on alcohol appreciation and responsible drinking.

Junior Josh Siegel, vice president of public relations for the group, said that only students over age 21 are permitted to drink, but that minors are encouraged to join and learn how to brew.

“The primary purpose of the group is to learn about brewing and take part in the process, but we’re definitely planning on having an alcohol education component,” Siegel said, adding that the group plans to invite speakers to discuss issues of binge drinking.

“There is a big dichotomy at this school between drinking to get drunk and drinking to appreciate beer.”

To ensure that the group maintains its double message, its constitution includes a provision that allows prospective members to join only following a vote of approval by each member of the group. Keenan said this rule would keep the group in line with its mission.

Thus far, Keenan says that 111 students have shown interest in the Students’ Brewing Society. Because the group has had little time and few resources to advertise, most students have found out about the group via word of mouth.

The group has applied to Student Union for Category 2 funding, and, if approved, will receive as much as $500 per semester. Eager to move the group’s operations out of her basement, Keenan would also like an on-campus location to brew.

As for making beer, Keenan hopes to show the student body how easy the process is.

“It’s really simple if you get the proper equipment and a good instruction book,” Keenan said. The only drawback, she added, is the time it takes to ferment the mixture—anywhere from a few weeks to three months.

Along with creating a wide variety of beer, the group also hopes to explore the St. Louis bar scene, which boasts a supply from all over the country.

Keenan and Siegel are optimistic about receiving funding from SU, as several SU members have expressed support of the idea.

“On an individual basis, they’re interested, but as an institution, they’re skeptical,” Keenan said.

Through the efforts of the Student Union (SU) executive board, SU Senator Mike Post and the Washington University Athletic Department, fans of the football team held a tailgate—where students barbecue, play music and prepare to root for their team—before the home opener to encourage school spirit.

The game, which was originally to be played at Greenville College, was rescheduled on short notice, prompting SU President Brittany Perez to plan the event in less than one week. Nonetheless, she claimed that 20 fans turned out before the game.

“We met to talk about how can we create a tailgating culture that maybe students could catch onto and make a tradition,” Perez said. Perez met with the Athletic Department earlier in the week to generate interest in tailgating at the University.

“A big thing about Wash. U. is that people wish there was more school spirit, and a great way to start that is through athletics,” Post said. “We need to make it an experience.”

The tailgate tradition has persisted perhaps since the birth of college football. For decades, legions of fans—mostly at major Division I universities—have shown up before games. Many fans of college football are even bigger fans of the pre-game tailgate.

“The thing I was pleasantly surprised about was how excited everyone was,” said Post, who hopes this weekend’s success will bring more people out to games for the rest of the season.

While the tailgate scene has so far eluded the University, Brittany Perez hopes this weekend’s event began a new tradition that will unify the student body and ignite school spirit.

“We said if we want to do something, we got to start with the first game. We can’t let it pass,” Perez said; she expects a bigger turnout next weekend, when the Bears face off against Westminster College at Francis Field, and SU has an entire week to inform students.

The University Pep Band is also expected to perform next week.

Perez hopes that SU’s efforts will prompt students to take the initiative and start their own tailgates, but in the interim, SU will continue to provide a grill, chips, dip and some beverages to entice students.

“We’re going to continue to promote on a smaller scale,” Perez said. “I think we want to use the resources we have in SU to get the tradition started.”

While the University is not the size of many schools renowned for their tailgating traditions, Perez thinks the student body is ready to tailgate.

“We don’t want to force it upon any student,” Perez said of the push to tailgate. “We want it to be something that students want to do.”

Perez hopes that the tailgating tradition will extend beyond football and will continue for all University athletic events throughout the year.

Junior Michael Young, who went to the inaugural tailgate, said he was only one of four students at the event but hopes to see a rise in attendance.

“I’ll definitely come back next week,” Young said. “It would be cool to have a tradition so everyone’s not in the library all the time.”

He added that the low attendance may be due less to the unpopularity of campus athletics and more due to the time of the game. Next week’s game will take place at night.

“I woke up at 12 [noon] and everyone was still sleeping,” Young said of his housemates.

With additional reporting by Ben Sales.

However, with a loading dock, kitchen facilities, an expanding bookstore and the Edison Theatre, Mallinckrodt will remain as it is for the foreseeable future.
Several Washington University administrators plan to meet within the next few months to construct a long-term plan for the campus center.

The Danforth University Center (DUC), complete with a diner, café, bistro and cafeteria-style food, will take over as the main on-campus dining option.
The DUC also houses the offices of several student groups, the Career Center, the Graduate Center and Student Union.
Aside from Hilltop Bakery, which will remain on the first floor for pre-made sandwiches and pastries, Mallinckrodt will no longer offer lunch.
Steve Rackers, the manager of capital projects markets for the University, says that while no formal decisions have been made, the open space in Mallinckrodt could be used to expand the bookstore.

“We want to maintain the viability of the bookstore,” Rackers said, adding that with less daily foot traffic, the bookstore will need to become more visible to people who pass by. “There is a desire to keep pedestrians coming to the building.”

At present, the University has no formal timetable for a redevelopment of Mallinckrodt, Rackers said, because most resources are focused on a smooth beginning to the school year.
“As always, when something new opens up, there is a desire to wait for people to settle in,” Rackers said.

He anticipates that the basement in Mallinckrodt may be needed for temporary overflow seating, as the DUC will likely not be able to accommodate the rush of customers in the onset of the academic year. Rackers predicts that the crowds at the DUC will subside as the novelty of the location wears off.
While the space may be vacant now, students saw the need for a change last year.

“I think the space was depressing and somber,” sophomore Jaspur Min said, referring to the condition of the basement cafeteria as it was last year. “If they created a nice atmosphere—brighter and more welcoming—for reading and hanging out, I think it would be a great place to meet up with your friends and relax in the middle of the day.”

As is customary with most on-campus space considerations, students will be given the chance to offer their own ideas to the University before any final decisions are made regarding the open area, Rackers said.
Rackers added that a major redevelopment project, which would involve a restructuring of the bookstore and the possible addition of several offices to the building, was put on hold for the start of the school year.

Currently, the Mallinckrodt kitchen is being utilized for food preparation for the University Center.

Senior David Yanofsky thinks the space provides room for the return of an on-campus favorite of students—a bar.
“That space could best be used as a bar, as a replacement to the old Rathskeller,” Yanofsky said, referring to the old on-campus pub that once sat in the basement of Umrath Hall. “I would also be open to the idea of putting retailers like J. Crew down there.”