This event was organized by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and Jobs for the Future (JFF), in partnership with the North Carolina Association of Community College Presidents Code Green Initiative and the Super Curriculum Improvement Project (CIP) of the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS). Goals of the conference included:

• Support the work of community colleges and other key stakeholders to prepare North Carolina’s workforce to meet employer needs, foster entrepreneurship, and stimulate the green economy
• Advance statewide efforts to integrate sustainable technologies into NC community college campuses and curricula by facilitating networking, peer-to-peer learning, and collaboration among faculty, staff, and administrators charged with making this transition
• Spread models for using cutting-edge campus sustainability initiatives as experiential learning opportunities for students, while conserving resources and cutting costs
• Help colleges make green economic opportunities more accessible through the exchange of best practices for developing programs that address common barriers to success

During the two day conference, participants heard from speakers including NC Deputy Secretary of Commerce Dale Carroll, NCCCS Associate Vice President for Innovation and Biotechnology Matt Meyer, Code Green Co-Leader and President of Wilson Community College Dr. Rusty Stephens, Super CIP Director Butch Grove, Regional Executive Director of NWF’s Mid-Atlantic Office Anthony Caligiuri, and Executive Director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA) Ivan Urlaub.  Other contributing and participating organizations included the American Association of Community Colleges, the NC State Industrial Extension Service, and the North Carolina Department of Administration.

Throughout the event, attendees were provided with several opportunities to participate in interactive breakout session discussions around a variety of topics related to green workforce training, career pathways, and campus sustainability.  Among these sessions were in-depth discussions to share best practices, challenges, and possible next steps on topics such as: Fostering Entrepreneurship, Climate Change Education, Student Support, Employer Engagement, the Super CIP, Engaging Lower-Skilled Adults in Green Programs, Engaging the Community, Financing Opportunities and Needs, Climate Action Planning, Local and Sustainable Purchasing and Procurement, Marketing Green Training Programs, North Carolina Energy Efficiency Initiatives, Policies Impacting the Green Economy, Sustainability Across the Curriculum, The Campus as a Sustainable Learning Laboratory, and Using Labor Market Information to Strengthen Green Program Planning and Development.

Following the last breakout session on Tuesday morning, participants were asked to break into regional groups (Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plains) to discuss and recommend next steps for establishing regional networks to continue exchanging best practices and foster further collaboration with other nearby community colleges, to advance their work and increase their capacity for preparing the green workforce and supporting a sustainable economy in North Carolina.  Our closing keynote for the conference was Leith Sharp, who is the former Director of Harvard University’s Office for Sustainability as well as the former Executive Director for the Illinois Green Economy Network, and who now serves as the Chair of the Sustainable Futures Academy.  Leith shared her model for driving change and lessons learned from her previous roles with conference participants, providing them with inspiration and practical knowledge for success.

The immediate result of this conference is not only a more connected network of change makers across North Carolina working to build the green economy and create more sustainable campuses in their communities, but also an extensive list of possible next steps to guide the work of the Greenforce and Code Green Initiatives moving forward.  The list of recommendations includes (from short to long term):

• Establish regional subcommittees to organize more frequent gatherings in the future, both through virtual means and in person.
• Create tools to foster communication and collaboration among community college stakeholders, specifically working to connect people in similar roles and around similar interests.
• Provide tools and training to help faculty integrate sustainability across the curriculum.
• Engage employers in designing training programs, supporting students through internships and jobs, and driving demand for sustainable products and services.
• Work with sustainable businesses in North Carolina and throughout the Southeast to negotiate group discounts and state contracts, and encourage more green product and service providers to register with the community college E-procurement system.
• Increase conservation awareness and work to change behavior of students, faculty, staff and visitors on campus, including through human resources and other trainings.
• Help combat lower-skilled students’ fear of failure and the unknown, and foster college-wide efforts to support students during their time on campus.
• Engage Presidents, Upper Level Administrators, Boards of Trustees, Foundations, etc. as well as Business, Community and Congregation leaders around sustainability.
• Increase support and recognition of this effort from the system office and in the community, including establishing a page on the NCCCS website.
• Create a North Carolina green jobs board, helping to connect employers to students and students to employers.  Promote green training programs to students and employers.
• Work together to get grants and other funding sources for collaborative work.
• Strive to establish sustainability coordinator positions supporting all community colleges in North Carolina.

It was truly an inspiration learning about all the amazing work happening on community college campuses across my home state of North Carolina!  Thank you to everyone who helped to make this event possible: NWF and JFF staff, the Code Green and Super CIP leadership teams, the Steering Committee, our speakers and workshop leaders, everyone who participated, and the Bank of America Charitable Foundation for providing financial support for the Greenforce Initiative.  We are excited to continue our work together to move forward with next steps!

Water Conservation and Reuse Panel

We began our day with light refreshments, introductions, and a round of “speed-networking” to help participants get to know each other one-on-one.  The networking session was followed by presentations on campus water conservation and reuse initiatives from representatives of the Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Georgia, Agnes Scott College, Emory University, and Georgia Southern University.  Common themes of the presentations included rainwater harvesting for irrigation, native and drought-tolerant landscapes, grey water capture and reuse for flushing toilets, low-flow water fixtures, green roofs, permeable surfaces for recharging underground aquifers, and other storm water management best practices.  Presentations were followed by a question and answer session with all the presenters.

Georgia Southern University's Bioswales

After lunch, workshop participants enjoyed a tour of Georgia Southern’s campus that highlighted water conservation efforts by the campus.  Our first stop on the tour was the new bioswales on campus.  This low-lying area had plagued the campus grounds crew for years, since water would collect there and make mowing nearly impossible.  By incorporating native wetlands plant species into the drainage area, mowing has been eliminated, the appearance of the landscape has improved, and this very beautiful part of campus is actually serving as a filter, helping to clean the water coming from the nearby parking lot.

Permeable Surfaces on Campus

The tour continued, featuring several examples of permeable surfaces on campus, drought-tolerant landscaping, and ponds surrounded by wetlands vegetation to treat and capture storm water runoff.  Our workshop concluded with a quick walk around the wetlands preserve at Georgia Southern University’s Center for Wildlife Education.  It was amazing to see how Georgia Southern and many of the colleges that presented have approached water conservation as an opportunity to not only save money and resources, but also as a way to enhance the beauty, function and appeal of their campus.

Storm Water Retention Ponds with Wetlands Vegetation

All in all, the event was a great success!  With new connections made, practical initiatives and advice shared, and a better understanding of how to implement water conservation and reuse initiatives on campus, participants left feeling inspired and empowered to improve water management practices on their own campuses.  Many expressed interest in following up with each other and staying connected through the Georgia Campus Sustainability Network.  We look forward to continuing to build campus to campus relationships, share best practices and resources, and foster collaboration for water and resource conservation across the state!

But the energy and action in Wilmington, NC didn’t stop there. This summer, students in UNCW ECO are creating a Green Fee proposal, leading the grassroots movement in the Stop Titan campaign, interning with Greenpeace and Oceana, taking part in the March on Blair Mountain, organizing a statewide retreat for youth environmental leaders and a Hands Across the Sand event, and recruiting 100’s of new freshmen this summer to support or lead campaigns next Fall.

The movement building sessions were key for our group of 60 students from UNCW ECO. New teams and lasting relationships were formed at Power Shift 2011, and our group is more cohesive than ever before. Students who weren’t that involved before Power Shift are now active in core leadership teams and are already starting new initiatives on campus and in our community. Emma Wicker, the newly elected President of ECO said,

“One night, a few days after Power Shift, I walked outside the library and saw a group of students training each other in preparation for our offshore drilling call-in day. It was amazing to see students who weren’t that active before Power Shift really stepping it up and being proactive in learning the skills they need to be effective activists. I was so proud of them and am excited to see what the new leaders in ECO will do this Fall.”

Students in ECO are also involved in our newly formed state network, the NC Student Energy Network (NCSEN).  The NCSEN is holding a retreat in August before school starts for students across the state to begin collaborating on energy and food sustainability issues in North Carolina, while having fun getting to know each other, so we can have a powerful network that organizes effective, united state-wide actions.

The most important result of Power Shift 2011 was the reinforcement of the fact that, we as youth climate activists, must be louder, more visible, and more organized than ever before.  We left Power Shift 2009 feeling empowered by our sheer numbers and we are leaving Power Shift 2011 with the realization that we must do more with our numbers to achieve our goals.

For students who might not have realized the dire consequences of inaction before attending Power Shift 2011, and for students who have been involved in the movement for years and are on autopilot, Power Shift was a wake up call that we all need to do more. We must think and organize differently than we have in the past, acting on a larger and louder scale.  We need to be creative in exposing the injustices imposed upon us by dirty energy corporations and demonstrating opportunities for a clean energy future, and we need to do more than set up recycling programs on our campuses.

Power Shift 2011 was a call to action.  Although we may not know exactly what we need to do to create a livable future, we do know that our current path will NOT get us there, so we have to start making positive changes in our lives, our communities and our world NOW.  We need to prepare ourselves to face risks and organize on the statewide and local levels, so that when the time comes, we can hold nationwide actions that will force our government to put human and ecosystem health before corporate profits.

Brinkley Hutchings is the former president of UNCW ECO and an NWF Power Shift 2011 Fellow.  ECO is the main environmental group at UNCW, comprised of dozens of energetic and friendly allies of the environment.  Working with the Greenpeace Student Network and National Wildlife Federation, ECO is connected with the nation on important campaigns addressing global warming.  They also work with local community groups and the university to improve and protect the environment for generations to come.

Dr. Lissa Leege of Georgia Southern University poses a question to Dr. Barlett and other workshop participants.

Dr. Barlett has been hosting “train the trainer” workshops for faculty leaders who wish to develop curriculum change programs, with a focus on infusing sustainability into the courses and curricula offered on their campus, for the last six years.  She has worked with over 300 faculty leaders from more than 200 schools in nine different countries to teach them about creating their own version of the very successful Piedmont Project at Emory University, which annually brings Emory faculty members from many different disciplines together to share and develop strategies for infusing sustainability into their courses and curricula.

This workshop was specifically designed and promoted to engage faculty leaders from a variety of institutions throughout the Southeast, especially those who may not have had access to this type of professional development opportunity in the past, due to highly competitive application processes and a lack of financial resources or campus support for sustainability initiatives.  Over the course of the two day workshop, Dr. Barlett created a space for participants to learn not only about her successes and struggles with the Piedmont Project, but also to learn with and from each other when it comes to strategies for integrating sustainability into their campuses’ diverse course offerings and convening faculty summits to help accelerate this process across campus.

The workshop began with introductions to several concepts related to environmental, social and economic sustainability, including several definitions, teaching using the campus as a learning laboratory, the impacts of unsustainable growth on public health, nine ways to change a course, and more.  In some ways Day 1 was framed as an example of what a faculty summit might look like on a participant’s campus.  Day 1 ended with individual reflection and then a group reception in Agnes Scott College’s LEED certified Alumnae House.  Day 2 focused in on the Piedmont Project model itself, with an overview of the model including tips for success and several exercises aimed at developing learning outcomes and strategies for infusing sustainability across the curriculum campus-wide.

Feedback received from workshop participants was overwhelmingly positive.  Here is a sampling of the anonymous feedback we received:

“We do not have a sustainability program yet.  I feel that insights gained here will help me jump-start a program and perhaps avoid some potential pitfalls.  I’m grateful for the opportunity to have participated.”

“Initially I perceived my role as an educator looking for tools to improve my course.  Now I perceive my role as an agent of change.”

“I feel inspired and empowered to now spearhead a sustainability workshop at my college.”

We look forward to following up with everyone who attended in the years to come to see how this event helped them to catalyze a movement for sustainability across the curriculum on their campuses and how National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology program can continue to support their work!

The day began with a tour of KSU’s brand new LEED Gold Certified Dining Hall, the largest facility of its kind to be certified at this level in the United States.  We learned about the design of the dining hall with respect to energy and water conservation, as well as improved usability for employees.  KSU’s dining manager then treated all 44 of us to a free all you care to eat meal, where we sampled the delicious cuisine from a variety of different serving stations.  Vegetarian foods, including vegetarian protein sources, were plentiful and many healthy dishes were offered.  There was also very visible labeling of all locally sourced ingredients, which helps students make more sustainable food choices.

After lunch, Shannan George of Life University, the world’s largest chiropractic college, made a presentation about Socrates Cafe, the new zero waste dining facility on her campus.  All food and drinks are served in compostable containers with biodegradable utensils.  They are testing a prototype composter that breaks down all food “waste” into a natural soil amendment in only 18 hours.  This product can then be mixed with soil and returned to the earth, rather than a landfill.  This system requires no chemicals or enzymes, but relies 100% on mechanical processes and heat to break down food, including meat and bones which can not normally be composted.  Campus Ecology also recently published a Case Study on this project!

I followed with a brief presentation about reducing the environmental, social and health impacts associated with eating large quantities of factory farm meat and animal products.  In addition to offering more vegan and vegetarian options in dining halls and food courts, campuses can choose to provide more sustainable animal products like organic, free-range eggs and wild game.  While vegetarianism may not be for everyone, by decreasing our consumption of unsustainable meat and animal products we can reduce: land and water consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, world hunger, unnecessary use of antibiotics, the cost of health care, and the rates of heart disease, obesity, cancer and swine flu, among other ailments.  Just some food for thought.

Nell Fry, Georgia Institute of Technology‘s Sustainable Dining Coordinator, made a presentation about cost-neutral sustainable dining initiatives.  These include energy and water conservation efforts, waste reduction through composting and recycling, local purchasing, substituting vegetarian protein options for meat, employee education, and several other simple steps that any campus can take to reduce their environmental impact.

Lastly, Emory University’s Sustainable Food Service Education Coordinator, Julie Shaffer, presented on Emory’s leadership in the areas of local and organic purchasing, as well as student engagement through on campus gardens and free culinary classes.  It was inspiring and informative to hear about the wide range of sustainable dining initiatives being taken by campuses across the state of Georgia.  Thanks to everyone who presented at the event!  I hope to hear many more great stories from campuses who participated in the workshop and look forward to future events with the Georgia Campus Sustainability Network.

If you are interested in learning more about the network or possibly getting involved, contact Carly Queen at queenc@nwf.org .

Fifty-two participants from 24 different campuses and five organizations across the state of Georgia attended this meeting to network, learn and share best practices for campus sustainability with their peers.  The group was a diverse mix of faculty, administrators, sustainability coordinators, facilities directors, environmental health and safety staff and students.  Attendees enjoyed the opportunity to converse with representatives from other campuses who approach sustainability from a variety of different backgrounds and perspectives.

The following campuses and organizations were represented: Agnes Scott College, Albany State University, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Clark-Atlanta University, Clayton State University, Emory University, Georgia College & State University, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA), Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Southern University, Georgia State University, Gordon College, Kennesaw State University, Life University, Macon State College, MarionEco, Mercer University, Middle Georgia College, Morehouse College, National Wildlife Federation (NWF), North Georgia College and State University, Savannah State University, Save Our Rivers, Inc., South Georgia College, Spelman College, Southern Polytechnic State University, University of Georgia, University of West Georgia and Valdosta State University.

Overall, the meeting went very well and participants found the practical information, sharing of ideas and networking to be most valuable.  While everyone seemed very attentive and interested in the variety of presentations offered, several individuals did express a desire for more discussion, socializing and Q&A time at future gatherings.  Most of the attendees stayed for the entire meeting and it seemed that everyone who remained at the end was in favor of continuing to network with each other, as well as organizing and attending future gatherings.

Already, seven individuals have express interest in forming a steering committee to establish a more formal network for campus sustainability in Georgia. Representatives from several different campuses have also expressed interest in hosting a workshop or other event in the future.  Further, some of the meeting co-hosts have indicated that they would like to also form a regional Southeast network in addition to the newly formed state network.  I will be exploring this possibility, along with many opportunities to continue engaging and supporting the Georgia Campus Sustainability Network (official name TBD).

Needs identified at this meeting: Website, Communication channels, Contacts list, Examples of local sustainability solutions and Future gatherings (proposed 1 annual state-wide gathering with multiple smaller, more-focused workshops, webinars and other events throughout the state over the course of the year).

Quotes from the meeting:

“This is the most important thing to happen in campus sustainability in the five years I’ve been in my position.” – Dr. Doug Oetter, Biology Professor and Chair of the Environmental Committee, Georgia College and State University

“I am so encouraged by the interaction of the group
and the number of sustainability best practices I see being applied by the attendees. Thank you for the opportunity to attend and to present.” – Greg Adams, Director of Management and Operations, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

“I thought the first-ever Georgia Sustainability Network meeting was a huge success.  Thanks for your organizational skills and tireless efforts!” – Kevin Kirsche, Director of Sustainability, University of Georgia

Carly greets the WWF panda at the U.N. COP15 climate talks

Unlike many of the youth delegates, I did not attend any protests or “actions” that took place during the conference. Rather than holding a sign, I chose the path of knowledge acquisition. Between the U.N. sessions and Klimaforum, I had more opportunities to learn in a few days than I might have during months of my “normal” life. Thinking through everything from nuclear energy to biodiversity means that some of my blog posts (listed below) are overlong, but I hope that a few of my conclusions might be useful to you.

I gained a much clearer perspective about what is to come and what needs to be done. What is being proposed in the most current version of the international climate treaty will not get us there. The Copenhagen Accord is insufficient, even if it becomes a legally binding treaty in the next year or so. A strong agreement is unlikely; as matters stand, it will not get ratified in the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. is only one of the parties that needs to agree to concrete, verified, sharp cuts in emissions. As citizens, we need to take up the responsibility that our government hasn’t. If there’s any conviction I’m leaving this conference with, it’s that you and I have plenty of power as individuals to make change happen. As citizens, homeowners, businessowners, employees, community members, congregations and organizations, we can begin to address climate change right now.

 We can reduce our consumption of new products, meat, inefficient transportation, electricity and other goods and services that result in excessive amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollution into our atmosphere. We can learn about exactly why nuclear energy is not carbon neutral, cost-effective or safe. We can teach others what companies are environmentally and socially responsible and change the way our communities consume.

The locals' dedication to riding bikes even on the coldest of days is inspiring.

We must be realistic. The systems that we have constructed for our modern civilization are based on unlimited growth and unlimited resources. They ignore the natural limits that exist for us living on a finite planet. To end this series on a more positive note, here are a few ideas for ways that you, as a citizen of the industrialized world, can directly address climate change directly by acting locally:

• Support campus sustainability.  Are you a student, faculty member, administrator, alum or otherwise affiliated with a college or university? Is your campus doing ALL that it can to lead the way toward carbon neutrality? Higher education has long been leading the sustainability movement, but there’s still a long way to go in addressing the climate crisis and other environmental concerns. Our siteis full of ideas and support to help your campus lead.
• Consume less meat and animal products.  Yes, those activists handing out vegan sandwiches to conference attendees had a valid point. According to the United Nations, “the food and agriculture sectors contribute over 30 percent of the current annual total emissions”globally. This can largely be attributed to deforestation and emissions from agricultural sites. Overconsumption of meat in industrialized countries is also a major cause of malnutrition in other parts of the world.
• Reduce your energy consumption by becoming more efficient. Ditch the incandescents for CFLs and LEDs. Weatherize buildings to reduce their heating and cooling load. Make sure your school is doing the same: institute an employee policy of turning off all computers, printers and other electronics, as well as lights, when leaving the office. Work closer to home or move closer to campus so that you can cut down on your commute, or even walk or bike. Also consider using public transitto get yourself there; if none is available, find a way to encourage it at your university. 
• Contact your elected officials.  Let them know where you stand on issues of environment and climate justice. They can’t act on your behalf if you don’t tell them what you want. In fact, with all the campaign donations and information they get from special interests like oil and gas companies, they aren’t very likely to act on behalf of the people they represent unless lots and lots of citizens demand that they do so. Office visits and hand-written letters are best, but emails, phone calls and petition signatures are also helpful. Democracy does not end with a vote.
• Learn, teach and inspire others to action! Education is essential for realizing long-term change, and this is the job of the university. Begin by getting informed about issues and technologies that interest you. Learn the ins and outs of climate science and the apparent “debate” that continues to run rampant throughout the United States due largely to a lack of education and huge sums of money being used by polluters for their “manufactured doubt” campaigns. Learn how renewable technologies, as well as coal and nuclear power, work. Learn to weatherize buildings, or even how to install and maintain solar panels. Now that you have the necessary information, you have the power to teach others. 
• Get involved with your local community.  Support local farmers and sustainable businesses in your area.  The more diverse and thriving your local economy is, the better off your community will be in the long term. If a community can provide itself with clean, renewable electricity, life-sustaining food, clean water, sustainable forms of transportation and other necessities, then that community will stand a much higher chance of enduring hard times.

It’s been an honor to be present for such an historic event, and I am so glad for the chance to share my experience with you. For more details on what I learned, as well as a few snippets of life in Denmark, see the posts below. Best of luck to you as you work towards a cleaner planet and a better life for its residents.

Peace and be well,

Carly

On my way to the Earth Hour event at Copenhagen's city hall square, I marveled at how many people ride their bikes through the city, despite the fact that it is incredibly cold, dark and snowy. (Perhaps this resistance to the cold is one of the reasons that so many people are willing to stand outside for an hour together.)    

Earth Hour's intent is to raise awareness of the need to take action on climate change, and is typically held in March. In 2009, 4,000 cities in 88 countries participated. However, to coincide with the talks, a few large corporations and the World Wildlife Fund set up a mini-version here in Denmark. In the "Hopenhagen" square, there was a giant sphere with projectors inside, a very tall Christmas tree that required people to ride stationary bikes to power its lights, several small buildings with glowing lights on the outside and a few tents, food vendors and booths.

"Hopenhagen" at Copenhagen City Square from Copenhagen

We stood in the square with several hundred people, mostly youth, as well as the WWF Panda and Darth Vader (without whom no event is really complete). After some speeches from a few of the mayors from around the world who have signed the Climate Protection Agreement and a short film history of Earth Hour projected onto the giant sphere, the lights went out. Well, some of them. The KFC across the street from city square kept its lights on, and the spotlights on the Hopenhagen billboard remained illuminated. Also, we didn't stand in the dark for an hour: after 15 minutes, the stage lights came on so that several musical groups could perform. As a statement about the importance of energy conservation, it left a little to be desired.

Earth Hour at 7:04pm from Copenhagen

Looking back, I can't help but think of how similar this Earth Hour event was to the one that I attended last March in Atlanta. There was a gathering at Georgia Tech, but the vast majority of lights stayed on despite efforts of students like myself. When running around campus to turn off all the lights we could, many of us found that light switches had been removed or did not exist in some cases so that the lights they would control were permanently turned on. Campus administration claimed that they could not turn off enough lights to actually make the campus dark, even for just one hour, due to safety concerns.

While I think that global demonstrations like Earth Hour and the 350.org International Day of Climate Action have been helpful in raising awareness about the science behind climate change and how we can address this issue through conservation and behavioral change, the events themselves are almost entirely symbolic. Participation in Earth Hour events is rarely widespread enough to cause a significant reduction in energy consumption and the lights that go out for that one hour are typically left on all night for the other 355 days of the year. Events like these should be educational and inspire people to actions that will actually have an impact on environmental problems that we face. Earth Hour events that give people the impression that turning off their lights for an hour is doing their part for the planet seem counterproductive.

The same can be said of the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement and even the proposed International Climate Treaty itself. If these symbolic gestures do not translate into action and results on the ground, then they are essentially useless. Imagine how powerful the millions of people are who have participated in events like Earth Hour and 350.org's International Day of Climate Action. So much could be accomplished if all those people, or even just some of them, decided to take the next step from participating in a symbolic action to actually bringing effective changes to their communities. What if, instead of turning off lights for an hour each year, Earth Hour participants replaced every incandescent bulb in their home or office with a compact fluorescent light (CFL = less energy consumed and less heat produced) and began turning their unused lights off every day and night? What if each one of the participants in 350.org's International Day of Climate Action decided to insulate their home and then helped their neighbors and those in less privileged neighborhoods to do the same? What if the money spent on plane tickets and private jets and limousines to the Copenhagen Climate Conference had instead been invested in energy efficiency or renewable energy? I dare say that the results would be nothing short of extraordinary.

Thursday, December 17 (Day 9)

I left the apartment earlier than usual this morning, caught the bus and train, and then walked very carefully through Copenhagen's ice-covered streets to meet Jessie Robbins, a delegate from Georgetown University, for lunch at Kaffe Kalaset. I arrived just a few minutes after she did and we each ordered a warm drink while we waited for our meals to arrive.  The little vegetarian-friendly cafe was almost filled to capacity, so we sat on stools at a window box by the door, using the flat surface as a table. 

Jessie was the first and only delegate from the United States, other than those from Atlanta, with whom I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss the events of the past two weeks. I had been introduced to her through my colleague at the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, Richard Mode. Jessie and I both grew up in North Carolina, but never met until this day. Although it didn't dawn on me at the time, she is four years younger than I am. 

Our impressions of the conference and surrounding events were oddly similar, such that the discussion we had over vegan tofu and pancakes was more of a commiseration than a debate. We both felt that protesters, while mostly well intentioned, were being counterproductive to the causes they claim to support. The stories and images of protests and conflicts with police officers that were spreading across the globe portray the climate movement as one of irrational, violent people trying to force their beliefs on others. We both felt that this misrepresents and marginalizes the climate and environmental movements that we support by overshadowing the efforts of people and nations around the world working to reach a global climate agreement that will achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, while addressing some of the most pressing social, environmental and economic issues on earth. I don't want to put words into Jessie's mouth, but you can listen to an interview she did shortly after meeting with me for lunch.(You can also read the blog that Jessie and the other Georgetown University delegates wrote.)

Thursday was to be my last day in Copenhagen, although the conference wouldn't wrap for another couple of days. Since only high-profile delegates and government leaders were allowed in the Bella Center during the final hours of negotiation, we had no reason to stay.

My final post, summarizing my impressions and overall experience, will appear here on the ClimateEdu homepage on Tuesday, Jan 12. Until then, view my photos from Copenhagen on Picasa or Facebook. It's been an honor to be present for such an historic event, and I am so glad for the chance to
share my experience with you.

Peace and Be Well,

Carly

P.S. If you are on a campus, and I can offer some support or advice to help you begin addressing
climate change and other environmental, social and/or economic concerns
in your community, please contact me, either through this blog or through the Campus Ecology contact page. 

Copenhagen

When I arrived on the platform outside of the Bella Center this morning, something was noticeably different. There was a line, actually two lines, at least six people wide and hundreds of people deep! Everywhere I looked, from the doors leading into the Bella Center to the edges of both the train and bus stops, there were people waiting to pass through security and get their badges made. This massive influx of conference attendees was evidence of the arrival of party delegates and heads of state from around the world. To add to the chaos, rumor had it that the badge making machines broke, causing some individuals to have to wait outside in the freezing cold for up to 9 hours. As a youth NGO delegate, I had been told that I may no longer be allowed inside the Bella Center after Monday because there were apparently more delegates attending the conference than the facilities could hold. Looking at this line, I wondered whether I even wanted to try getting in during the second week at all. I decided to try my best to get into the center for one last day, while I still had the option. Luckily, I already had a badge, so a guard let me through the barrier gate, earning me a few nasty looks from the folks waiting for theirs.

Once I got inside the conference center, I made my way directly to the U.S. Center, where Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was scheduled to speak. I got in a very long line just before noon and was dismayed to find that it barely moved during the hour that I waited (the session started late). Because the small room was more than half-filled with press officials, they were allowing only one person per NGO to enter and only about 20 delegates got in total. I was forced, along with many others, to watch the event on the big screens outside of the U.S. Center. To highlight steps that the Obama Administration has already taken to progress the United States toward an efficient renewable energy future, Secretary Chu explained that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included an $80 billion "down payment" on a clean energy economy, which is expected to double renewable energy generating capacity in the U.S. by 2012.

Dr. Chu then announced the Climate REDI (Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative), a $350 million initiative for which the U.S. will provide $85 million to support programs like SLED, the Solar and LED Access Program, in developing countries. Other programs to receive funding through Climate REDI include the Super-efficient Equipment and Appliances Deployment (SAED) program, the Clean Energy Information Platform (CEIP) and the Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program (SREP), which invests in solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal and small hydro power projects, provides technical assistance and builds capacity for the installation and maintenance of renewable energy systems in developing countries. You can download Secretary Chu's Powerpoint presentation here, for more information about these and other initiatives being taken by the U.S. Department of Energy to address climate change.

After Secretary Chu's speech was over, I decided to attend a plenary session that sounded interesting.  I got there and waited, but the session never began. I only learned later that about 130 of the least developed and developing countries had walked out of the earlier plenary meetings that were being dominated by richer, developed countries, suspending official party negotiations. What was their reason for leaving? The official answer: while the G77-China bloc of developing countries was pushing for emissions reduction targets from developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, the European Union, United States and other developed countries were promoting an alternative agreement that would replace the Kyoto Protocol altogether. This new plan was put together largely by European countries and the U.S. without input from developing countries, which many felt was undemocratic and biased in favor of richer nations. (Read the "Danish Text" leaked to the Guardian, or the official Draft text proposed by the United States.) Furthermore, many members of the G77-China bloc demanded dramatic increases in the amount of funding that they would receive from developed countries to support them in their adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development efforts. The suspension did not last long, however, and negotiations resumed later in the afternoon.

I took half an hour to sit in on the US-China Youth Workshop Press Conference. The youngest member of the China Youth Delegation, a girl still in high school–whose name I have regretfully forgotten–said that the responsibility of youth is to influence people's behavior. She gave an example of how she had told her father that he should not drive a car because it causes pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, her father sold his car and now rides a bike to work. I thought this was important because it reminds us that we are most influential with our friends and family and that change begins at home. We have the power to create more sustainable communities, but only by speaking our minds, changing our behavior, setting good examples, encouraging others to improve, supporting changes we wish to see and actually going out and making a real, positive difference. As Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

After the press conference, I attended a side event called "200 NGOs in Africa and Asia working for Sustainable Energy," hosted by the International Network for Sustainable Energy (INFORSE) and Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF). I enjoyed this session because it provided several examples of sustainable development projects being implemented on the ground, in communities where they are truly needed. Most of the projects highlighted used renewable energy technologies to alleviate poverty and provide a higher standard of living for community members. Technologies like solar ovens have helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as particulate emissions that cause respiratory illnesses, and prevent deforestation by using sunlight to directly heat food rather than burning wood to do so. In many cases, women are the primary beneficiaries from such projects because they lighten their immense daily workloads and help them accomplish what they previously thought was impossible, empowering them to participate in and even play leading roles in improving their communities. Projects like these are extremely important and demonstrably effective, but could benefit from development of regional and national plans to guide their implementation, as well as additional funding.

I'd made the most of my time in the Bella Center. Satisfied, I wandered
across the street for a salad made with organic greens and goat cheese
crostinis, drank a glass of Shiraz, caught the bus back to Jakob's and
went to sleep – one day older and one day wiser.

Tuesday, December 15 (Day 7)

I spent Tuesday morning catching up on work at Jakob's place. The weather had gotten much colder and icy rain was falling, so I enjoyed staying inside for a while where it was warm and dry. I headed to the Klimaforum around 6:00pm, after the sun had already gone down. I had forgotten my hat, so snowflakes were beginning to coat my forehead when I ran into McNair and Steven Cornish, a student from Morehouse College. I paused briefly to talk to them, and Steven kindly offered his glove to dry off my forehead. Despite the cold and the crowds, the people I have met here are doing a wonderful job of taking care of each other.

I wanted to attend the session on "A Nuclear Renaissance?," because I've heard arguments from many different perspectives on the costs, benefits and risks of nuclear energy, but felt that many of them were biased and didn't really have all the information. I had friends in college who were pursuing degrees in Nuclear and Radiological Engineering, and they would tell me that nuclear energy is the answer to all the world's energy problems. If I ever questioned them or mentioned an issue with nuclear power, they almost always dismissed my argument because they either felt that the benefits of nuclear far outweighed the costs or claimed that nuclear fusion would overcome all issues with fission, although fusion technology has not been proven feasible for use in a civilian setting in over 50 years of research. On the other side of the debate, I've found many environmentalists who are absolutely against the use of nuclear power for any reason. However, their reasons for rejecting nuclear technologies are often underdeveloped and sometimes completely misinformed. 

There are a few main arguments against nuclear power: first of all, nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere use ridiculous amounts of water for plant cooling, sometimes as much as 11,000 gallons per second. Even if this water is returned to the source, the output water is 20-30^oF higher than the rest of the water body, causing problems for cold-blooded aquatic species and often leading water to evaporate once it exits the plant. Another common argument against nuclear power is that it produces dangerous, radioactive waste that is very difficult and costly to store safely. The counterargument is that this waste could theoretically be recycled, or even launched into space, but neither of these has yet been practically demonstrated or proven. Then there is always the accusation that nuclear power and nuclear weapon technologies are too similar to be fully distinguished from each other, suggesting the proliferation of nuclear power also means proliferation of nuclear weapons. I've never heard this point refuted and it certainly wasn't refuted at this event. I assume that means it is true and relatively indisputable.

The first speaker was Dr. Lutz Mez, who currently serves as the Executive Director of the Environmental Policy Research Centre at the University of Berlin in Germany. Since the mid 70s, he has focused his research specifically on nuclear power and atomic technologies. He made four main points:

• Capacity: the share of nuclear electricity in global total final energy consumption (TFEC) was only 2.47% in 2006, and possibly going down, since the number of reactors peaked in 2002 at 444. Because plants are decommissioned after about 40 years to avoid meltdowns, and NO new nuclear power plants went into operation in 2008 or 2009, Dr. Mez projected that nuclear power will make up a smaller and smaller share of TFEC as time goes on.
• Workforce: there is a lack of a skilled and experienced workers to perpetuate nuclear energy safely into the future. He gave an example of the aging workforce at a major European energy
  corporation, EDF, to demonstrate that experienced nuclear engineers
  will be in short supply when the vast majority of nuclear industry
  employees retire over the course of the next decade. As of 2008, less than 20% of EDF employees were below the age of 35 and more than half of all employees were over the age of 45.
  Until very recently, the numbers of graduates receiving degrees in
  nuclear engineering were at all-time lows since nuclear technologies
  were invented for civilian use. The increase in degrees awarded in
  recent years can largely be attributed to the lack of major nuclear
  melt-downs like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the last couple of
  decades, as well as the energy crisis and concerns about carbon dioxide
  emissions.Regardless, the numbers of graduates are still small compared to those in the 1970s.
• Cost: in the past, proponents of nuclear technologies have claimed that the
  electricity they produce is so cheap it doesn't even make sense to
  meter it.This was true only because of government subsidies, but the actual cost of building a new nuclear power plant is often 2-4 times the estimated cost. Looking at estimated vs. actual building costs in the past, one could reasonably estimate that the actual cost to build a new
  nuclear plant, if construction began tomorrow, would be in the range of
  $10,000-20,000+/kW and will most likely increase in the future. 
• Carbon emissions: nuclear energy is not carbon neutral…  not even close! Greenhouse gases are released in the mining of uranium (much of which
  comes from countries like Canada and Australia), the transportation of
  uranium and the use of uranium as fuel in nuclear power plants. As the
  world uses more and more uranium, the quality of the supply will
  decrease and the cost will rise. With declining fuel quality comes a
  nearly exponential increase in the emissions produced from nuclear
  power plants. So an actual "Nuclear Renaissance" would not only
  cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but it poses a great
  economic risk in the long-term. (See this presentation that Dr. Mez made a few years ago for more details on any of these statistics.)

The next speaker was George Monbiot, a British writer who is highly esteemed in the environmental community and a regular columnist for the Guardian. Mr. Monbiot was not speaking as an expert on nuclear energy or nuclear energy policy. He spoke as a voice of experience from his real-world encounters with the darker side of the nuclear industry. He discussed his journey back and forth between supporting and rejecting nuclear energy as a sustainable form of electricity generation, giving examples of why nuclear energy is not and never will be sustainable and concluded with his opinion about the role that nuclear power should play in the future. His position on nuclear energy, as stated at this time, is basically that it should ONLY be used in cases where the only other choice is to build a coal plant. In every other case, renewable energy is the safer, cleaner, more cost-effective and less environmentally destructive choice. Nuclear power is better than coal for several reasons, including that it (currently) emits less greenhouse gases, pollution and radioactive waste into the atmosphere than conventional coal plants.

Mr. Monbiot also shared two striking examples of why nuclear waste disposal is a major concern, despite the nuclear industry's claims that all radioactive waste is disposed of in safe, effective and just ways. The first example he gave referred to the Scottish nuclear power plant, built in the 1950s, at Dounreay:

"Before the first reactor at Dounreay was completed, the operators -
the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) – bored a tunnel under the
seabed, through which its liquid effluent would be discharged. In order
to remove the spoil, UKAEA dug a 200-ft shaft a few yards behind the
cliffs. Though this hole was unsealed, though groundwater could flow in
and out, and though coastal erosion could pull the whole thing down
into the sea within 100 years, in 1959 the British government gave
UKAEA permission to use this shaft as a dump for radioactive materials.

"In
1977 the shaft exploded, blowing the lid off and scattering hot
particles. It would not be strictly true to say that the incident was
covered up. After rumours of the accident reached the press, UKAEA
issued a news release entitled "Minor incident at solid waste
facility". The word "explosion" was not mentioned."

The second example ismore recent and even more shocking. Mr. Monbiot told us the news of how a shipwreck containing nuclear waste was discovered off the coast of Italy.

"Detectives found the ship after a tip-off from a mafioso. It appears to
have been carrying drums of nuclear waste when the mafia used
explosives to scuttle it. The informant… said his clan
had been paid £100,000 to get rid of it. What makes this story
interesting is that the waste appears to be Norwegian. Norway is famous
for its tough environmental laws, but a shipload of nuclear waste
doesn't go missing without someone high-up looking the other way.

"Italian
prosecutors are investigating the scuttling of a further 41 ships. But
most of them weren't sunk, like Fonti's vessel, off the coast of Italy;
they were lost off the coast of Somalia. When the great tsunami of 2004
struck the Somali coast, it dumped and smashed open thousands of
barrels on the beaches and in villages up to 10km inland. According to
the United Nations, they contained clinical waste from western
hospitals, heavy metals, other chemical junk and nuclear waste. People
started suffering from unusual skin infections, bleeding at the mouth,
acute respiratory infections and abdominal hemorrhages. The barrels
had been dumped in the sea, a UN spokesman said, for one obvious
reason: it cost European companies around $2.50 a tonne to dispose of
the waste this way, while dealing with them properly would have cost
"something like $1,000 a tonne." On the seabed off Somalia lies
Europe's picture of Dorian Gray: the skeleton in the closet of the
languid new world we have made.

"The only people who have sought
physically to stop this dumping are Somali pirates. Most of them take
to the seas only for blood and booty; but some have formed coastal
patrols to prevent over-fishing and illegal dumping by foreign fleets.
Some of the vessels being protected from pirates by Combined Task Force
151, the rich world's policing operation in the Gulf of Aden, have come
to fish illegally or dump toxic waste. The warships make no attempt
to stop them."

No matter how strict the regulations or how safely nuclear plants are supposed to dispose of their waste, the cost of doing this is prohibitive and will even drive power companies in the most environmentally-conscious nations to take advantage of less expensive, often illegal and immoral methods of waste disposal. Stricter regulations actually increase the rate of occurrence of illegal dumping, leaving no viable options for ensuring proper disposal of nuclear waste other than to not create it in the first place. This point speaks to the problems of regulation in other areas of environmental policy, as well. I'm not suggesting that we eliminate laws that have been put in place to limit the amount of harmful pollutants released into our environment. However, the fact remains that many corporations will do just about anything to avoid paying the costs of compliance with such regulations. We really need to look at ways of incorporating externalities and costs to ecosystems and life on Earth into the financial costs of building polluting power plants and other monstrosities that aim to profit by taking vast amounts of resources from the world and giving back only "waste." We need to change our financial incentives structures, since that seems to be the most common way of making decisions these days (we should probably be working on that, too, but it would undoubtedly take some time). 

To start, we could eliminate the government subsidies for coal, nuclear and fossil fuels that burden taxpayers and create a false sense of stable, low prices on power bills and at the gas pump. Then we could look at ways of funding environmental protection and restoration funds by creating taxes on the extraction of resources, excessive use of energy and creation of waste. Ideally this would serve as a catalyst for businesses to recycle, reduce or eliminate their waste stream and conserve energy and water. We must still be very vigilant in preventing companies and governments from finding adverse ways around such taxes, but this seems much more feasible than trying to monitor and regulate every act of waste disposal of every major organization on Earth. Some may fear that companies will try to pass these taxes along to customers, which is certainly possible and even likely. However, this will also offer an incentive to consumers to purchase less expensive (or at least competitively priced) products made from recycled materials with fewer resources, energy and waste.

Perhaps I'm just being an idealist. I am not an expert in any of these areas. However, from my perspective this is a simpler and more realistic plan for addressing environmental injustices. I would love to hear your comments, criticisms and alternative ideas–feel free to contribute below. My next post will be my last, so look forward to a little more synthesis tomorrow!

Still adjusting to the 6 hour difference between Copenhagen and Atlanta, so I slept in and missed my chance to hear Dr. Vandana Shiva speak. (Ed: This is a shame: we've written about her before on this blog.) I'm disappointed, but I've been fortunate enough to have previously heard her speak regarding access to clean water and the importance of organic gardening and saving seed on excellent documentaries, like "FLOW: for the love of water," "The Corporation" and "The World According to Monsanto," which I highly recommend.

After so much time spent in sessions and taking notes, I knew I need to take some time to explore and recharge. I'd done some research into the city of Copenhagen, and once I made it out into the cold, I headed for one of the main commercial districts, called the Stroget. Of course, there were the typical stores like H&M, United Colors of Benetton and even an Urban Outfitters, plus MaxMara, Chanel, Louis Vuitton and several other high-end shops. I was trying to find something unique for my family and friends back home, but this was not the street for that. I've had a major problem lately, although I consider it a blessing in many ways, with buying new, mass-produced goods. First of all, I know that there are a lot of resources, water and energy used to make and transport new goods. Also, it troubles me to read the tags saying "Made in China" without knowing about the quality of the working conditions and wages for those employees.

Fortunately, I had looked up the location of some secondhand and specialty shops on the next street over. One such store seemed to be Denmark's version of a Salvation Army. I looked around for a while and found a few items (a scarf, a cardigan, some pairs of coconut shell earrings, a woven winter hat and gloves, all either handmade or vintage) that put a definitive end to my shopping adventure.

I walked to the most unique and interesting part of Copenhagen – Christiania. Jakob (my host while I'm here) had told me that this area is a must-see for newcomers to the city. Basically, Christiania is a self-proclaimed autonomous community not far from the city center. They have their own laws, which differ in some respects from those of Denmark as a whole, and are not subject to police interference except under extreme and fairly uncommon circumstances. (Wikipedia explains the history of Freetown Christiania here.) I found the area particularly exciting and was pleasantly surprised by the atmosphere and friendliness of the people I met there.

The day ended with a quiet Christmas party, held in a living room filled with the warm red glow of candles. I feel more prepared for the next day of work.

Sunday, December 13 (Day 5)

Today I'm catching up on news, blogging, and reporting back on what I've learned. I spent a lot of time today thinking about how to effectively achieve global emissions reductions and repair our devastated environment, economies and social situations. Without going into too much detail, I support straightforward, effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, restore our ecosystems, protect life on earth, empower people to act at the household and local levels and rejuvenate economies across the globe. 

Examples of national and international action I want to see include changing our incentive structures to reflect the true cost of goods and services, including environmental and social externalities, improving education and access to information and technology for people in developed and developing countries, especially for women, and implementing laws that require pollution and toxins produced by a nation to remain within the borders of that nation, thereby preventing developed countries from dumping their "waste" in less developed countries. 

• First, I would like to see the United States phase out fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies so that they would have to compete on the same playing field as renewable energy technologies, many of which already make more economic sense than coal and nuclear in the long-term but are not given the same level of financial support from the government. Then we need to come up with a simple system of charging polluters for their emissions to further shift incentives and create a source of funding for mitigation, adaptation and restoration projects that would be effective and avoid fraud and interference by corrupt government regimes. This could be a tax on fossil fuels, a price put on greenhouse gas emissions, penalties for exceeding limits on energy use or emissions or something else entirely. I'm not an expert on this topic, but I know that we must overcome the threat of corruption and loopholes in whatever system we create so that it will effectively reduce emissions. 

• Revolutionizing our education system to meet the needs of the 21st century, rather than those of the smokestack era, would be a more long-term project, and results wouldn't be immediately visible. However, it is possibly the most important thing that any government (or other entity) could do to ensure survival and prosperity for its citizens in this new millennium. Sadly, I am convinced that real changes like these, along with true improvements in our health care system and the transition to a sustainable future powered by clean, renewable energy, have little to no chance of success until we achieve fair democratic elections through campaign finance reform. It is very important for politically-oriented folks to keep fighting for legislation that improves our health, environment, economy and quality of life, without sacrificing government efficiency (by adding to the enormous bureaucracy already in place), freedom or future generations. I also think that we must ALL participate in our democracy at every level that we possibly can (from doing our research and voting to communicating with and even visiting the offices of our elected officials) to reclaim the power that has slipped from our hands into those of the special interests and big businesses that finance politician's campaigns.

• No matter how ambitious a climate and energy bill we pass, this country cannot achieve the reductions necessary to preserve life on earth without people implementing projects on the ground. We are not all very politically-minded and many people involved in the youth-led climate movement have extraordinary skills to share, but few outlets currently exists for them to do so in this international movement. Many of us prefer to participate in community service projects rather than protests. Many of us want to work FOR something and not always AGAINST something. Many of us prefer not to wait for the day when our governments finally decide to act on climate change, but instead want to take action in our homes, on our campuses and in our communities RIGHT NOW. I am one of these people and know that there are many more. My goals for the coming year have a heavy emphasis on setting up programs and educational campaigns to teach and empower others to use their skills in creative, constructive ways for protecting and improving life on earth without burdening or robbing future generations.

I explained much of this to Robert and McNair (who spent the day
catching up as well) who then convinced me to attend the US Youth
planning meeting that would take place that evening in hopes of
influencing plans for the next week and also for 2010 and beyond. This meeting was filled with leaders from many different US youth environmental organizations, which I won't name specifically–this post is already long enough.

The meeting lasted about two hours and attempted to come up with a strategy for the next week and also touch on plans for the new year. Perhaps I missed the scope of the meeting, because I was more focused on moving forward after the Copenhagen conference was over than concerned with planning actions for the last week of the talks. I knew, along with many others in the room, that there was virtually no chance of moving the U.S. position for negotiating the climate talks. A line has already been drawn by the US Senate. Federal Climate and Energy legislation now rests in their court and they have made it pretty clear that a reduction of more than 4% below 1990 levels by 2020 will not get their approval. Meanwhile, the European Union promises a 20% reduction below 1990 levels during the same time period. So why spend our time engaged in actions where we hold signs and yell or sit and refuse to move until our demands are met when, A) we know that there is almost no chance of our demands being met in Copenhagen and B) we know that in the slight chance that the U.S. negotiating position does shift, it will result in a treaty that will be voted down by our very own Senate?  If anything, shouldn't we be trying to speak with US negotiators in person, rather than hoping they will catch our shenanigans on the internet? I wasn't bold enough to ask these questions at the time, unfortunately, but I'm taking that chance now.  

Our government may not be willing to reduce national emissions by more than 4% below 1990 levels, but we as individuals and organizations and businesses can take responsibility. If Cap-and-Trade is implemented, we can buy emissions allowances at auction and prevent those emissions from ever being released (or at least cause fines for overages). We can work in our communities to improve building energy efficiency through weatherization and lighting retrofits. We can contribute to reforestation and ecosystem restoration to naturally and effectively store carbon in plants and soil. We don't need the government's permission to do this, so what are we waiting for? Imagine the results we could achieve by acting locally, but in every locale.

But after all this discussion, the best thing to come out of this meeting was that almost all the Atlanta youth delegates were in the same room. With a little prodding, we managed to get everyone together for some quality time over drinks and dinner. We came across a Turkish restaurant that had relatively cheap beer and appetizers, and when we walked in, we were surprised to find none other than Dr. Robert Bullard himself eating dinner with several colleagues. What an incredible coincidence! Tony and a few of the others with me have worked with Dr. Bullard before, so I finally got to meet the "Grandaddy of Environmental Justice" who has done so much to put the protection of people back into the environmental movement. Awesome surprise encounter!  It was a great twist ending to a very good weekend.