Since its inception, global warming fanaticism has had nothing to offer the world but lower economic growth, guilt trips, alarmism, regulations and infringements on personal liberties. It is now clear that the carbon-regulated world desired by green advocates will never be a reality, and that their efforts to force their carbon-friendly environmental practices down the throats of the Washington University community are an utter waste of time and resources.

The real wake-up call for most Americans was the release of the Climategate e-mails. These e-mails, obtained by enterprising young hackers, showed scientists lamenting their inability to account for periods which lacked warming and conspiring to keep data out of the hands of skeptics. This sort of conniving is bad enough for the PR of the global warming movement, but things get worse when it has been shown that supporters of the movement have been propagating outright falsities.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s panel on climate change, has recently been caught verifying several wild exaggerations. First, the IPCC made the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, causing major ecological crises in the region. Next, the panel stated that up to 40 percent of the rainforests were in jeopardy due to increasing temperatures. Neither of these claims ended up being the product of peer-reviewed science research, but rather, of off-hand comments made in environmentalist magazines. Nonetheless, these propaganda pieces were allowed to have major effects on the public policy debate.

Furthermore, a series of inconvenient conflicts of interest have been revealed throughout the global warming alarmist community. Recent allegations have arisen that Dr. Rejendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, has held paid positions on various committees of financial institutions. While he claims that he donates all proceeds to his personal charity foundation, the lack of a conflict-of-interest policy for the IPCC panel leaves many wondering whose interests Dr. Pachauri is representing. Meanwhile, our friend Al Gore, owner of a private jet and one of the largest energy consumers in the state of Tennessee, has made millions from his global warming activism and from his personal carbon-credit company which he pushes as a solution to climate change. Right here in Missouri, the recipient of very lucrative tax credits to promote wind energy is none other than Tom Carnahan, brother of Congressman Russ and Secretary of State Robin. Major global warming and alternative energy advocates have been consistently proven to be interested in more than “cleaner” energy.

Whatever faith people had in climate change activists has long since evaporated. Yet, the goals of the fervent environmentalists never really had a chance of becoming law to begin with. As the Kyoto and Copenhagen climate summits demonstrate, it turns out that China and India are uninterested in sacrificing the sort of economic growth we have enjoyed in the United States in exchange for a vague promise of a potentially cooler climate in the distant future of generations not yet conceived. We can learn from the utter failure of the Cap and Tax Scheme in Congress that most Americans, already struggling with high energy costs, are unmoved by arguments stating that we need to be the first to sacrifice our lifestyle in an effort to reduce the world’s temperatures.

The possibility for global climate change legislation, if there ever was such a possibility, should be considered an idea as dead as the phlogistic theory of fire. So you can give us back our bottled water, cut out the local food fetish, take the propaganda off the garbage cans and let me wash my hands without being lectured about sustainability. These small changes come only from a desire to annoy and control other individuals, not from any sincere belief that they will have the slightest effect on the future of our global climate. I have no desire to partake in the religious conviction that we all must do a little part to change the climate regardless of the realities of global politics. Yet, I do understand others’ desire to participate in what they consider to be a moral obligation. Might I recommend you start by recycling the Obama stickers you all have on your cars? You probably won’t be needing those again anyways.

Phil is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at pchristofanelli@hotmail.com.

“I think it’s really exciting,” said senior Will Fischer, Student Union’s executive adviser for sustainability, leader of the Green Events Commission, and co-chair of the Special Executive Task Force for Sustainable Events. “It mirrors a nationwide increase in awareness of the idea of sustainability. I think it’s wonderful because I think universities need to pioneer the development of a more sustainable world. We are training the next generation of thinkers, scientists and engineers. It only makes sense that we follow what will be the big problems in our world.”

Many students nationwide are enthusiastic about the opportunity to engage academically in environmental issues.

“I don’t think there’s a significantly larger number of students who are interested in this here than at comparable universities,” Fischer said. “I feel like we’re pretty average in that concern. I think we’re feeling the interest a lot of universities are feeling right now.”

Student interest in “green” academic fields is rising due to the increased awareness of the importance of sustainability, according to Green Action President Peter Murrey.

“It’s really just an interest in the environment, realizing that we as a generation are at a crossroads,” said Murrey, a junior. “We are going to determine the future of how we interact with our planet. We need to be knowledgeable about how the planet works, how businesses work and how we, in general, impact our surroundings, and how the surroundings impact us as well.”

Additionally, the applicability of sustainability issues to a wide variety of fields makes it an appealing subject to study.

“[Environmental programs are] highly applicable to so many other disciplines: environmental economics, business, chemistry, philosophy,” Murrey said. “Students who traditionally had an interest in these fields and were interested in the environment before now couldn’t exercise that interest in the environment. But now they can broaden their horizons and incorporate the environment into these fields.”

At Washington University, there has been a marked increase in interest in environmentally focused classes over the past decade. The number of students enrolled in the environmental studies major, for example, has doubled over the past 10 years.

Many other departments are offering classes that incorporate environmental perspectives into other fields as well. For instance, in the political science department, students can take a course titled Environmental and Energy Issues. The engineering school offers courses on “Green Engineering.”

“Just about any class you can take is going to apply in some way to the environment,” Murrey said. “You can make your coursework fit a

Another reason students are choosing environmentally focused majors more than ever before is the demand in the workforce for employees with those skills. According to the AASHE, the Obama administration predicts that “green” jobs will grow by 52 percent from 2000 to 2016.

“I hope that in the next couple of years we will see growth in what we want to call the ‘green economy,’ and the idea of ‘green collar’ jobs,” Fischer said. “Hopefully, that ideal will start to really show itself, and jobs and positions all around the world will start to open up to people of all sorts of fields in developing renewable technologies, implementing renewable technologies [and] driving policy decisions. While it seems like a trend right now, it seems like a fad, I’m confident that it’s here to stay.”

“I think overall, it is a good plan—but not outstanding,” said junior Peter Murrey, president of Green Action.

Students approved of the University’s plan to use more plants native to Missouri in its landscaping.

“I think that’s one of the most ridiculous things on this campus, the degree to which we force some image upon the earth when we really should be letting native plants grow and contribute to Missouri pride and atmosphere,” Murrey said.

Students also lauded the University’s goal to reduce single-occupant vehicles coming to campus by 10 percent by the year 2012, as well as its commitment to public transportation. The reduction in landfill waste was another goal that was praised.

One major point of student criticism lay in the University’s energy policies.

“I’m disappointed on the lack of emphasis on renewable [energy],” Murrey said. “I think it has been misconstrued on how adequate solar [energy] can operate in our region and there hasn’t been enough examination of geothermal possibilities. I think we are bounded by how cheap our electricity here is and we need to ask ourselves, ‘Are we taking into account the true costs of the energy we are being provided?’ because most of this energy is from coal.”

Currently, the University’s electricity provider, Ameren, provides electricity for 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Because the cost of electricity is so inexpensive, it makes it difficult find a solution that is economically sustainable for the University. Murrey pointed out that there are external costs associated with using coal. But since the University uses a standard traditional capitalist model, external costs are not taken into account, he said.

But the biggest problem for many students was in the goals for greenhouse gas emissions. The University plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 27 percent from 2009 levels.

“That is not adequate in the face of climate change, which the University has acknowledged as a very serious problem,” Murrey said.

Senior Melissa Legge, who facilitates the meetings for Student Green Council, said that she was worried that these goals were too conservative.

“This is our chance to reach for something, and if all of the goals that we’ve set are 100 percent achievable and we know that right now, then where is the room for innovation?” Legge said. “Where is the dream?”

Executive Vice Chancellor for Administration Henry Webber addressed this concern by saying that the University’s strategy is “incremental.”

“We asked ourselves, ‘What’s the most impressive thing that we know we can do if we pushed really hard, didn’t buy carbon offsets and didn’t rely on technology that doesn’t exist?’” Webber said.

Webber said that the current plan is only a draft and that it is a living document that can be changed with input.

“This is the community’s plan,” he said. “I think that the community needs to be comfortable that we’re setting the right goals. Also, there are a set of very important actions that the community has to engage in.”

According to Webber, they have already received several hundred comments, which have been “overwhelmingly supportive” of the plan.

Those who wish to offer input on the plan should attend one of the forums that are taking place through next week or e-mail sustainability@wustl.edu.

I’m relieved to see finally the Wash. U. sustainability plan, but it isn’t good enough. I appreciate the administration’s efforts to adopt broad policies that will help reduce the University’s impact on nature. The fact that our university acknowledges the serious threat climate change poses to the nation’s natural resources (which is probably more than coal and energy executives on its board are willing to admit) is refreshing. But the sustainability plan as it is now is sadly incomplete; it will never achieve its full potential without a serious commitment to educating Wash. U. students, faculty and staff on making responsible choices that will protect our natural surroundings.

The draft plan has numerous positive initiatives. One is single-stream recycling, which I love. Now you can dump anything except food, liquids, Styrofoam and tissues into any Wash. U. recycling bin; recycling on campus is now faster, easier better. The University has held strong in its commitment to eliminate coal as an energy source for steam generation. LEED-certified buildings will help mitigate the effects of the never-ending construction on campus.

Yet as always, beauty is only skin deep. I’m willing to bet that most students don’t know that they can recycle potato chip bags, or wash out and recycle the brown food boxes, which means recyclable waste still ends up in landfills. Ameren UE is still St. Louis’ main electricity provider, and it generates most of its electricity from burning dirty coal. I’m sure Wash. U. participates in Ameren’s PURE (People Using Renewable Energy) Power program, but the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported that less than half of the extra fee for participating goes toward renewable energy credits, which may support out-of-state projects. Most of the fee goes toward marketing costs and profit.

So what can be done to make the sustainability plan better? For the University administration, promise to reduce the amount of new construction and to fight for cleaner energy sources.  I realize Missouri has a pathetic renewable energy infrastructure, but Wash. U. is in a unique position (particularly with an Ameren executive on its board) to demand more. Also, the Tyson Research Center powers itself exclusively through solar power—if solar energy works for the Tyson Center, why not experiment with solar panels on a residential hall or classroom building? Finally, I like my colleague Brent Sherman’s thoughts on building metering. I’d be open to the University reducing room and board costs but then metering and charging rooms and suites individually, incentivizing energy-conscious actions.

For Dining Services, commit to better information on food sources and impacts. Many students may know our bananas are Fair Trade Certified, but do they also know at least some are shipped from Colombia, over 2,000 miles away? Was my lunch grown in the rice fields of Arkansas or Vietnam? A great system would organize menu items into low-carbon (green), medium-carbon (yellow) and high-carbon (red) choices.

And for everyone, focus on a greater awareness of our actions and their impact on our surroundings, so that “I didn’t know” is never an excuse. Probably the best idea I have seen in my year and a half at Wash. U. are the color-coded “Landfill” and “Recycling” stickers on trashcans and recycling bins. They instantly educate you on what effect your throwing away an item has on the world around you. There should be red stickers saying “Coal-powered” above every light switch, or a picture of Hugo Chavez and an oil field next to each television. There should be stickers on washing machines labeling the hot and warm cycles as wasteful. With these and other steps, everyone in the Wash. U. community would be better educated and prepared to make a difference in college and beyond.

Among the key goals of the plan, which aims to create a more sustainable campus, are reductions in carbon emissions and the number of single-occupancy cars coming to campus. Administrators will hold a series of forums to gather feedback before finalizing the plan.

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Sustainability Matthew Malten and Executive Vice Chancellor for Administration Henry Webber contributed to the draft plan.

“Assuming that the final plan is similar to the draft plan, I think you would see a continual evolution toward a more sustainable campus,” Webber said. “This is an ambitious plan, and it’s a plan that recognizes that we’ve already made a good bit of progress. There are challenges and it will take a long-term commitment.”

Webber believes that the changes will happen over time. He brought up the University’s gradual implementation of recycling programs—going from no recycling to making changes toward the new single stream program—as a model for how the changes will be made.

“So far the comments on the draft plan have been very positive and very helpful,” Webber said. “The vast majority of people have responded positively to the thrust of the plan.”

According to Webber, one of the main challenges will be meeting goals that require action by outside entities.

“We control, as an institution, some of the key levers; some of them we don’t control,” Webber said. “We can have a large impact on our consumption of electricity, but we don’t produce electricity.”

Webber mentioned that power companies must soon begin producing 15 percent of their output from renewable sources. According to Webber, those companies will have to meet their own requirements to achieve the emissions goals.

Metro will also play an important role in transportation.

Malten said that many of the measures already have elements in various stages of implementation on campus.

“Students will start to notice more changes,” Malten said. “Some will be a little more subtle than others. One of the key components within the plan is we’re really trying to make our efforts and performance really transparent.”

The strategic plan has several areas that will directly impact students, such as several points aimed at food service on campus.

“This is going to be hard work and it’s going to require our focus and hard work for multiple years and it’s going to require that everybody within the campus community play a part,” Malten said.

Malten said that it is going to be a challenge to coordinate campus projects, as meeting the goals will require renovations of several older campus buildings.

Some parts of the plan do have set target dates for completion.  For example, the goal for 2012 is to have reduced the number of students arriving in sole-occupant cars by 10 percent. The plan also calls for reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 without purchasing carbon offsets. Information provided with the plan said that the reasons for not purchasing offsets were that it is difficult to track their validity, the money may not be used appropriately and the money might go to projects that would be completed anyway.

Peter Murrey, president of Green Action, believes the University will be able to set more ambitious goals for itself in years to come and is excited to see how the current goals are implemented.

“That’s the timescale in which our University works,” Murrey said. “Would I like to see it implemented faster? Yes, but we have to work with the current structure, and that’s just a fact of how our University works. It’s slow.”

Murrey said that the choice about carbon offsets shows that the University has carefully considered how to make the plan effective.

“We’re seeking to make actual improvements here instead of outsourcing the emissions somewhere else,” Murrey said.

Webber noted that some of the goals are likely to face challenges because the University does not have control over all aspects.  For example, there is no facility in the area that can process organic waste.

“I think that’s kind of a cop-out,” Murrey said. “If there are no facilities, we are a leading institution. Why don’t we create one and become an innovator?”

Murrey said that his organization wants to become as involved as possible, and encouraged students to read and respond to the plan.

Murrey also noted that he would like to see the University become carbon neutral by 2050, if not before, as a long-term goal.

“Ultimately, our University needs to become carbon neutral,” Murrey said. “We still have not signed on to the Presidents’ Climate Commitment, which so many universities and all of our peer institutions have done.”

The plan will be reviewed regularly as well. It is to be reviewed and updated in 2012 and again in 2016.

“This is not something that we think we have all the answers to today, and it’s not something that we think the goals that are appropriate today will remain appropriate several years from now,” Malten said. “We know that technology is going to certainly change. We’re going to be able to continue to do more and more and improve our performance.”

Webber said that those who want to comment on the plan should attend one of the forums or e-mail comments to sustainability@wustl.edu.

Every time water is extracted, the pore space in between the aquifer rocks shrinks, causing the aquifer to compact and lose its ability to absorb water. As the ground becomes denser, the earth’s surface sinks. This is the explanation behind the sinking (and flooding) of New Orleans and Venice. Water from other parts of the aquifer flows into the area from which water was extracted, causing polluted drinking and bathing water and also lowering the water table in other parts of the aquifer. From the sinking of New Orleans and Venice to water-borne illnesses to water shortages in areas that used to have sufficient water supplies, the geological effects of over-extraction cause severe social ramifications.

These effects aren’t isolated; unsustainable water practices in one area make it difficult to extract clean water in surrounding areas. Aquifers don’t adhere to political or social boundaries, creating conflict between countries or groups within a country. For example, water rights to the Nile River give Egypt two-thirds of the river’s total output, leaving others with an insufficient amount of water to meet agricultural, power, industrial and household needs. The water of the Jordan River is also highly contested for the same reasons: There is not enough water to meet growing demand in developing or developed areas given current use patterns.

Sometimes it is accurate to say that a whole country is experiencing a potable water shortage. But due to existing power paradigms, there is often internal bias towards industrial, large-scale agricultural power and wealthy household use, as opposed to small-scale agriculture and the needs of rural households. This affects the health of those people experiencing localized water shortages and often leads to unsustainable water use from all groups.

Climate change is only aggravating existing water shortages. Climate change increases the strain placed on groundwater sources that are already overdrawn by the needs of growing populations and industries. As demonstrated in Texas and California, political institutions aren’t acting quickly enough to alleviate the increasing pressure on the world’s aquifers. As more and more energy and money are required to extract and purify water all around the world, the development of sustainable water distribution models becomes more and more urgent.

Ellie is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at ercooper@wustl.edu.
Avanti is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at ap.scarlette@gmail.com.

But why? Why do I bother switching off the lights in an empty room or buying local produce? Because in reality, I’m not crazy. I am not radical; I am not ignorant. I am not a victim of some global warming hoax that liberals have cooked up to help spread the wealth. What I am is passionate—passionate about making a difference.

I am passionate about environmental issues, though not because I am any smarter or more righteous than anyone else. Frankly, it takes neither brains nor morals to be an environmentalist—it merely takes a little thought. I am passionate about environmental issues because I believe in doing what makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to use sewer sludge on food that people will eat or to breed turkeys so large that they need artificial insemination to procreate. It doesn’t make sense to throw away a bottle you can reuse. It doesn’t make sense to rely on outdated, polluting energy sources that are entirely nonrenewable. You can burn fossil fuels and sequester all the carbon dioxide in the ground, but you’ll never overcome the fact that coal and oil supplies are limited.

What does make sense is promoting cleaner, renewable energy so that there are no worries of limited supplies and major oil spills. What does make sense is farming as sustainably as possible, so that land’s resources are not exhausted. What does make sense is eliminating waste, because we can’t afford to waste anything more—time, energy or natural resources. I admit that I’m an idealist; I’m wishing for a lot in a short period of time. But athletes constantly crave a perfect game; engineers dream of a perfect machine. And better yet, they take action to achieve their goals. Likewise, I refuse to sit back, passively avoiding problems, when time is better spent striving for real solutions.

As an environmentalist, I am not a member of a deranged cult or religion; I am a part of a movement of concerned individuals trying to make the world a better place. If you’ve had a chance to stroll through campus in the last three weeks, you’ll know that Wash. U. is a beautiful place. Despite the Great Flood of October, the grass is lush and green, the trees are golden and red. We live at a beautiful school, in a beautiful country, on a beautiful planet, and I’m eager to do what I can to preserve all of it. Maybe one day I’ll be proven wrong, but for now I know what is right. I have to admit it—I care.

Considered to be the largest environmental effort in history, the event took place last weekend in over 180 countries and on all continents. The goal of the event was to pressure political leaders attending the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference to take stronger stances on slowing global warming. Activists in the movement around the world, including those in St. Louis, photographed their rallies and intend to send the pictures to Copenhagen.

Green Action President Peter Murrey, a junior, said he believes the global response shows that people from all cultures “want climate legislation to happen.” Murrey said that “leaders have to realize that if they don’t recognize that, they will find themselves out of a job very quickly.”

The number 350 represents the maximum amount of carbon dioxide in parts per million (PPM) that, according to scientists, can be in the atmosphere without triggering the damaging consequences of climate change. Currently, carbon dioxide levels are at 387 PPM in the atmosphere.

Supporters of clean energy legislation want to see these carbon dioxide levels decline and insist that, as senior Guillaume Auffret put it, more work be done to promote sustainable energy.

“We are talking about wind energy, solar energy [and] geothermic energy,” Auffret said.

Auffret hopes that the U.S. government will adopt “a sense of urgency” regarding climate change and said he believes that European and Asian countries are surpassing the United States on this global issue.

“We need a strong U.S. presence there [in Copenhagen] if we are able to effect any change,” Murrey said. “We’re one of the leaders of the world, and for us to be lagging on this issue is disgusting.”

Some Third World countries are bringing innovative sustainability plans to Copenhagen. Indonesia, for example, plans to harness geothermic energy from the water vapor emitted by volcanoes.

Locally, Wash. U. students attended 350’s Action @ the Arch Rally with about 200 people. Mayor Francis Slay encouraged activists there, stating that he along with 60 other mayors urged the White House to complement economic stimulus funding with green initiatives.

Sophomore Adam Hasz was especially inspired by the mayor’s support, and he emphasized the “immediacy of this issue in terms of local action and how we can make a difference right now.”

Also a member of Green Action, Hasz hopes to see Missouri lawmakers take action to improve the state’s energy efficiency rating, which currently stands at 45th in the nation.

While sophomore Matthew Blum, treasurer of Green Action, also found the rally inspiring, he hopes that in the future, supporters will be less homogenous. Blum said he believes that although the movement is international, “here, in St. Louis, it needs to diversify.”

After Action @ the Arch, the University campus hosted a 350 Sustainability Fair, the last event for CS40’s Ecolympics, a weeklong challenge for residential colleges to prove how green they are. Held on the Swamp, the event invited students to participate in a clothing swap and hear the Nuclear Percussion Ensemble, which played with instruments made from recycled materials.

Junior Anna Li said she believes “the clothing swap will be an annual event in the future,” with more campus involvement.

Sophomore Brandon Lucius, CS40’s sustainability chair, said he’d like to see Ecolympics become more competitive in the future, with more student participation.

“By no means is Power Shift or the 350 campaign or any of these environmental movements regarding climate change coming to an end,” Hasz said. “At Wash. U., the movement will actually continue to grow in the coming months, up until Copenhagen, and will hopefully continue to grow as the years go by.”

Apparently the result of a fungal infection, many frog species are dying off rapidly, leading researchers to worry about the diversity of frog populations and the implications for the region as well as the world as a whole.

Jonathan Chase, director of the Tyson Research Center and co-author of the paper, said there are many mechanisms that can lead to such a decline.

“Usually the first culprit is habitat loss—when you lose area you lose species,” Chase said. “It’s the most important relationship in ecology.”

Chase also discussed the role of the fungus in the frogs’ decline. According to Chase, it is suspected that the fungus, amphibian chytrid fungus, is not native to the areas where it is causing extinction and that humans have caused it to travel into the areas. Since the fungus is not native, the frogs have no evolutionary experience with it.

“Oftentimes massive die-offs like this are associated with invasive species,” Chase said.

Kevin Smith, associate director of the Tyson Research Center and first author of the study, has been leading studies looking at the presence of the fungus in eastern central Missouri at Tyson and other natural areas near the St. Louis area.

The fungus is found all over the world but has caused large-scale extinctions in Europe, Australia, Central America and western North America. Chase said there are multiple theories of where the fungus originated, including South Africa and Japan.

“We know the very same pathogen or at least what appears to be the very same pathogen, this amphibian chytrid fungus. It’s causing declines and extinctions in south Central America, in Australia, in Europe and even in other parts of North America, yet in a lot of the eastern United States including Missouri, it seems to be present but doesn’t have any effect at all,” Smith said. “We very rarely find that frogs in this part of the country are associated with this pathogen.”

The rapid extinctions cause fewer and fewer species to make up the bulk of the frog population.

“Biodiversity loss has many implications, some of which are aesthetic—it’s simply sad that we’re losing huge proportions of the species that used to be present, and the loss seems to be something that humans have caused,” Chase said.

Central America was chosen, according to Smith, because it was the first known area to show such extinctions due to the pathogens. He said tracking the pathogen is difficult because it has been known only for 10 years but probably had an effect long before it was discovered. Also, the fungus is microscopic, and other than a few minor symptoms, it is hard to identify infected animals in the field.

“Do frogs affect our daily life? Probably not. But is the extinction of many frogs going to influence the world’s ecosystems? Yeah, [frogs] are a very important species,” Chase said.

Chase cited the fact that frogs feed on many species of insects and play a vital role in the food web and the regional ecology where they are found.

“It doesn’t seem to be causing the massive die-offs that you see in some of these other areas, and that’s another area we’re interested in—trying to understand why,” Chase said.

Chase said studying amphibian populations can give insight into what impact climate change can have for other organisms.

“A lot of people want to say amphibians are canaries in the coal mine,” Chase said. “They tend to be more sensitive to environmental change.”

Changes in regional ecology such as this as well as decline of coral reefs can be indicators of changes happening in the world. Chase said the frog extinctions might be a combination of the fungus, elevated pollution and other factors.

“It shows that if extinctions occur non-randomly, if they’re selective, if there’s a pattern to the way the extinctions are happening, you can end up losing a lot more biodiversity than if it were just random extinction going on,” Smith said.

At the Tyson Research Center, there is ongoing work examining Missouri’s own ecology.

Karen Lips from Southern Illinois University was also an author of the study and collected much of the data. The article ran in the October issue of Ecology Letters.

Smith said the next steps for the studies would be to look at other waves of extinction to see if they are selective and identify the causes. He said it is important to study the pathogen where it does not cause extinctions because one hypothesis is there may be an additional environmental trigger.

“I think it shows how important it is that there are biologists out there doing this kind of work all over the world, because at some point this data is going to be used and this is one of those cases,” Smith said.

(Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Following a silent demonstration from an anonymous party, the Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Science has pledged to cut down the amount of time it operates several flat-screen televisions in its buildings.

The engineering school primarily uses the flat-screens to display information or promotional slides from administrators and students or cable television programs. Three of them sit prominently across the main entrance to Lopata Hall.

Two weeks ago, several signs of protest—printed simply in black font on white paper—were posted anonymously on the screens inside Lopata. The signs noted the high price and operating cost of the flat screens and questioned the University’s decision to spend money on the screens, given the current economic climate.

“The signs did prompt us to look at how long the screens are on, and we are initiating a new policy that the screens will be on from 8 a.m to 6 p.m.,” said Nick Benassi, associate dean for the engineering school.

Benassi said this time is the highest traffic period in front of the screens. The screens will also be turned off on weekends and holidays.

Senior Dan Brewster, president of EnCouncil, supports the engineering school’s decision to reduce the screens’ hours of operation. But Brewster said he feels most students are not opposed to the screens.

“People don’t really have an issue with it, and I think that most people notice the screens and maybe appreciate having the information there, but they don’t have an actual issue with it,” Brewster said. “We hope that if they did, they’d come talk to us about it before just doing random things that aren’t going to get them anywhere.”

Junior Sam Fok said the screens “do a good job of informing people about what the school is all about.” But he also expressed some disagreement with the school’s decision to reduce the screens’ hours of operation.

“Since they’re there already, I think we might as well make full use of them,” Fok said. “I don’t know if they need all three screens in the entrance of Lopata, but having the media there that is readily adaptable is useful.”

Brewster said he feels that the screens display information more efficiently than bulletin boards, which EnCouncil had used to announce events in the past. Brewster said his fliers inevitably become buried by the slew of papers that also cover the bulletin boards.

“No one looks at bulletin boards. There’s a lot of paper that gets wasted on them, so the school wanted to go in this direction,” he said. “By having the screens up there, the engineering school is able to get its messages out.”

But some students said even the screens fail to grab their attention.

“I think it’s good that the screens save a lot of paper, but I don’t ever really look at them, and I don’t look at the paper either, for that matter,” sophomore Michael Laks said.

Greener than bulletin boards?

Both Brewster and Benassi emphasized the flat-screen televisions’ potential for making the University more sustainable, compared to the bulletin boards that had been used in the past.

“The school feels that it can cut down on the amount of paper it uses,” Brewster said. “By using those screens, it can improve communication to students, faculty, staff, everyone who walks through that lobby a couple times a day.”

“It’s a great way to get messages out when they want to,” he added.

Benassi echoed Brewster’s belief that using the screens will be a more environmentally friendly and cost-efficient practice for the school.

“[The screens are] saving paper and expenses related to producing the paper,” Benassi said. “A student can do one electronic Powerpoint slide and send it to us, so we can distribute it to many locations.”

Benassi also emphasized the importance of the screens for prospective students of the engineering school, who start their tour in the lobby of Lopata.

“We have the two different audiences—visiting prospective students and parents can catch a glimpse of the school while they’re waiting for their tours and for the internal students can learn about what’s going on.”