To The Big Green:

Moving beyond coal may seem costly at first glance, but there are many other factors that come into play when talking about monetary concerns. A recent State News article claimed that eliminating coal usage would cost the university $20 to $25 million. Our new art museum costs $40 million; about double the amount it would take to stop the use of coal. So why not invest in something that costs less and would affect the entire state of Michigan rather than something that’s double the amount and only affects a miniscule percent of MSU’s student body?

Right now the MSU power plant burns coal (photo credit: Brett Ekblad).

According to the National Academy of Sciences, coal-fired power plants cost the government about $156 million per plant a year and over $62 million in hidden costs that we are already paying for through our paychecks. These hidden costs are roughly twice the cost of the coal itself.  In addition, long term pollution not only disrupts plant growth, but leads to a $500 million loss due to reduced crop production in the U.S. every year.  Clearly, coal is not cheap.

Coal runs at a high cost in terms of money, but it also makes a huge impact on our health and the lives of future generations. Stopping the use of coal will prevent health risks, such as premature death, heart and lung disease.  Not only does it affect the obvious respiratory and cardiovascular systems, but it also has a large effect on the nervous system. Coal pollutants also cause loss of intellectual capacity through mercury. Researchers estimate that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.

Finally, coal accounts for about 40 percent of our nation’s carbon dioxide pollution. If we eliminate using coal and switch to a cleaner source of energy, in the long run, we will be saving an insurmountable amount of money, protecting our lives and those of future generations, and decrease the effects of global warming.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Huang

There is nothing more annoying than going into a store to find a rude, unhelpful salesman. You are reminded of this when you walk into Store A. He talks over you when he has no idea why you’re in his store.  It would be so much easier if he just listened. After telling you to wait, the guy tells you he doesn’t want to fix your TV for some reason you know cannot possibly be true. It’s one of those stores that would rather sell you something defective and profit when you need it replaced. Wonderful.

This isn’t going anywhere, so you leave. But you still need to get your TV fixed, as you’re having guests over tomorrow and it’s too late to cancel. Your friend is bringing that cute girl you’ve been meaning to talk to. Failure is not an option. With no other choice, you go to the other guys across the street, hoping your luck changes.

Thankfully these guys actually know what they’re talking about. Store B works much better than Store A. You explain what you need and they get it for you. They treat you with respect and actually listen to what you want. You’re even told its ok to call if you have any further problems. You give a sigh of relief, because this is how business is supposed to be done.

We come to college to, among other things, get a degree.  The University runs the business and we are the customers.  We need this degree to get a well paying job.  The university needs our tuition keep on going.  As students, we would hope the university would be like Store B and not Store A.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

Recent decisions by the administration have been troubling and deserve attention. In particular, their current plans to expand the Residential College in the Arts and Humanities (RCAH) Program and cut Deaf Education Program are especially ridiculous. It makes no sense, and is concurrent with a troubling trend of short-term thinking the University has chosen to take in their fiscal affairs.

I understand there need to be cuts when there are limited funds.  A weak economy in Michigan means less revenue for the University. I don’t blame them for having to pick between bad and worse when it comes to cutting back. It’s times like these where they must see which programs are truly needed. But the University is willing to hedge its bets on a program that they are selling well to prospective parents and students. It’s true that they’re going to make a quick buck in the next few years. But they are also willing to ditch a sound program that graduates qualified and skilled students every year for one hasn’t had a graduating class yet.

I have nothing personal against the RCAH. However, when compared to Deaf Education, the marketplace does. There is a market demand for those in Deaf Education for a reason. American Sign Language is the third most used language in the United States. Our Deaf Education Programs offers a unique bilingual experience that cannot be found anywhere else in Michigan. Thus, there is a reason why students enroll in the program. Prospective employers know this specialized program prepares them well for the workforce.

On the other hand, RCAH has a much less marketable potential for their graduates. It’s a young program that already has a dismal retention rate compared to any other Residential College on campus. People are leaving the program not just because of the lack of academic rigor, but the uncertainty for job prospects when they would finally graduate. I would be hard pressed to compare RCAH’s retention, job placement, and graduate school acceptance rates to that of Deaf Education. You would think such a weak program would be cut if we were running low on funds, not the program that has already proven itself.

And when these numbers come in the next few years, the consequences of such a decision will become evident. They will have to cut RCAH, as parents will stop sending their kids to a program that does not prepare them for a global economy. What then will the board say to those students who couldn’t get into Deaf Education?

They’ll be speechless, like the big businesses that took bailouts last year. The Banks’ short-sighted, high profiting loans, and the crisis that followed, should rebut any notion that focusing only on the short-term is a viable business model. GM and Chrysler put as little quality in their cars as possible to squeeze out as much profit as they could, only to have the world watch them topple into bankruptcy. Michigan State’s administration is acting like these bad characters. They have Store A Syndrome. What they value is quick profit, not the quality of the education they are providing.

What comes from this kind of irresponsibility is an annoyance with institutions we feel should be able to do much better.

I can’t think of a Democrat or Republican that doesn’t have some kind of disdain towards the banks after what they just put the county through.  I can’t think of one Michigander who was proud to see GM and Chrysler pleading to Washington for emergency funds. And these days, it’s hard to find people who really believe the University’s board is looking out for the students’ best interests. We hear hopeful language but are slapped in the face with boneheaded, shortsighted proposals – like cutting the Deaf Education Program. We have all seen the narrative before, and the plot gets old quick.

The real tragedy here is there does not have to be a contradiction between the University profiting and looking out for what’s best for students. There are plenty of common sense decisions and would benefit everyone. As a sports fan, it would be nice if they wouldn’t try to change the Spartan Logo when it is broadly disliked by the student body. As someone who lives in the dorms, it would be nice if they wouldn’t charge obnoxious sums of money for meal plans. As a Resident Mentor, I would rather the absurd amount they spent on “Live On” events be used to fund scholarships for students. And as a friend of some in the Deaf Education Program, I would appreciate it if the University used some rationality and prudence when making budgetary decisions.

These are decisions that prompt people to live off campus and sometimes leave Michigan State all together in the long run. This is what ultimately makes them loose profit. The University must realize there are no short term profits that can trump a deficit of trust students have with administration board members.

Conversely, small changes to show their concern with students’ long-term interests would give incentive for people to stay. That would bring sustainable profit over the next few years. The University would be running the right kind of business. We’ll be glad to bring our TV in if we’re being treated right.

If the University can afford to keep the RCAH, by all means they should do so.  But in such a deep recession where an education means more than it ever has for employment opportunity, they need to have their priorities in check.  Expanding RCAH and abandoning Deaf Education is a terrible idea, and board members should know better.

In the end, they need to do some serious soul searching. Everyone knows how the global economy operates. The quality of education students we receive is critical for finding a job. Businesses thrive because they care about their customers, not because they can cheat them out for a quick profit. I sincerely hope they reverse this decision and show they want to run the right kind of business we can all be proud of.

Editor’s Note: This is an opinion piece by a guest columnist, and may or may not represent the views of TBG and its staff. If you disagree you’re free to leave your comments at the bottom or submit your own letter to tbgletters@gmail.com.

Ahh, fall!

MSU kids may have to drive twenty minutes to find a cider mill and buy cider at Meijer, but at least we get some great scenery. Of course there’s campus trees (see our slide show!), but I also love seeing the kids trick-or-treat in the dorms, and older Halloween participants walk the line between costumed and exposed. The organic farm stand gets squash in, and off-campus residents cringe when they have to start paying for heat.

This issue you’ll find a concert review and a story about some salvaged pets. And look for some videos!

TBG is publishing more frequently these days- follow us on Twitter and we’ll keep you updated. Our username is TheBigGreen.

Happy fall everyone!

Emily Lawler, Editor in Chief

Greetings TBG Followers and Friends,

The leaves aren’t the only ones changing colors this fall- The Big Green is hopping into the new school year with a new Web site, new publishing schedule and new staff members!

The creation of this Web site was generously supported by Campus Progress and established by CoPress. A lot of work went into working out all of the kinks, and this first issue is a testament to a lot of hard work by everybody involved. If you have comments, compliments or criticism on our new look, I urge you to leave them below on our new comment feature.

In an attempt to become more internet-savvy, TBG is also revamping its publishing schedule. Instead of having to wait a whole month for stories you’ll be able to find stories from two sections (State Side and Arts & Culture) here on the first of every month, and stories from Global View and Sex & Health on the 15th. Between those times we’ll be putting up the fun stuff– multimedia– and timely stuff, like music reviews. So don’t expect us to read like a print publication anymore, you’ll have to keep checking back for new content!

We also have a bumper crop of new Editors:

Megan Durisin (State Side)

Brandon Kirby (Sex & Health)

Theresa Gasinski (Global View)

Marla Kalmbach (Arts & Culture)

Kaleigh Robichaud (Associate)

Mallory Hines (Associate)

So get excited, because this year TBG means business. We’re getting stuff done and taking names (to cite sources, but still). Please poke around our new site, and I look forward to your feedback.

Best,

Emily Lawler

When it comes to the environment, I am a tree hugger.  I believe man’s carbon imprint on God’s Earth is both immoral and unsustainable. I also happen to be, however, a fiscal conservative. I am skeptical whenever government tries to meddle with my pocketbook or interfere with the market equilibrium, as they have a reliable record of being inefficient, wasteful and just plain stupid. Having these beliefs has led me to a conclusion: Cap and Trade will not work – but that doesn’t mean we can’t save the environment.

The idea behind Cap and Trade is that the government sets a price for a carbon permit to be traded on a market.  The government would limit the amount of permits issued and the permits would be traded among companies. Tax revenues would be collected by the government, where the geniuses in Washington would supposedly figure out how to fund the next green innovation. So by definition, the key problem with Cap and Trade is that it relies on government’s judgment, not a scientist or engineer’s ingenuity.

It seems reasonable at first that government would be funding specific areas of the energy sector – wind, solar, or bio-fuels –  from this tax revenue collected from Cap and Trade.  But how would Washington figure out which alternative energy source makes the best sense to reward tax breaks?  The way they figure everything out — by listening to the most influential special interest.

The company that has the loudest lobbyist that writes the fattest check to senators working on this legislation will win tax benefits, not the company that deserves it. Hence, government will defer real, logical change when it comes to helping the environment, and that’s a problem.

Apart from the debacle of government choosing our energy sources, the idea of Cap and Trade itself is flawed. The MIT report that came out a few months ago said that Cap and Trade would cost the average family thousands in yearly expenses. The report stated that jobs would be cut, if not shipped overseas to some extent.

Not to mention, it’s Global Warming that’s the problem, not American Warming.  Even if we conserve 10% of carbon emissions by this taxation, the flood of people who will be driving new cars and opening coal mines in India and China will counteract these reductions.  That’s the problem with conservation – it doesn’t fundamentally change our energy needs from fossil fuels to energies that do not hurt the environment.  It’s just a redistribution of wealth.  Understanding all of this, I propose an alternate route.

Instead of taxing carbon or hoping Congress can figure out which alternative energy will replace fossil fuels, I propose tax benefits for research in this field – big ones.  Let the free market work by giving it an incentive to shift in the direction of clean energies.  I promise with enough research money, someone from Harvard or Princeton will figure out how to run a car on maple syrup.  Some scientist will figure out how to make the energy grid gather wind energy and solar energy together efficiently.  Engineers will be able to test and innovate these discoveries to solve our energy needs.

Then, when these research efforts yield results as to which alternative energy to invest in, give the free market a reason to produce it. Give the victor of this research effort massive tax breaks, and the market will take advantage of it. All that government will need to do is create broad conditions for these tax subsidies.  Congress would only have to mandate that the new green technologies vying for tax breaks would only produce a certain amount of carbon emissions.  This way, politicians would not be choosing our energy needs, the market would.

I think this approach would work a lot better than the Cap and Trade proposals coming out of Washington.  It cuts government out of the process as much as possible, while embracing basic Supply-Side principles that have proven to work.  I think our best bet at solving Global Warming is to give the free market a nudge in the green direction, in the form of tax relief.

And realistically, in order for there to be real green effort it needs to be profitable.  The economy will not turn green unless fuel efficient cars, solar panels and wind turbines are profitable. Just mindlessly funding an alternative energy source the government picks cannot fundamentally change how we use energy — scientists and business leaders need to be a part of the effort as well.  It has to be a long term and comprehensive plan, not one based in short term, political motives.

The transition may take a few years to implement, but I think the process of funding research and then acting on that research can work.  In doing so, we can create sustainable growth while saving the planet.  Not a bad deal.

Dear readers,

Well, here it is, the ninth and last issue of TBG for this school year. May came along unexpectedly fast, and now instead of mapping out next month’s storyboard, I am paging through every issue from this year, and damn it’s been a good one. The launch of our Year in Review print issue just a few days ago topped it all off perfectly, and if you’d like to check it out before you pick one up on campus or at local bookstores and coffee shops, click here.

This issue may mark the end of my TBG career, but I really think TBG just might outlive us all. And if not for that long, then definitely through next year because the incoming editorial board is pretty amazing. I know I’m excited to make the transition to the other side of the computer screen as one of you – a loyal reader, and page through what next year’s crew comes up with.

So, thanks to all of this year’s writers who wrote, revised, and then revised some more and to our fabulous designers who pulled through every month. And an enormous thank you goes out to the best group of editors I know. No monthly issue, launch party, print issue, or much of anything would have happened without you. And I miss edit nights already.

But most of all, thanks for reading. We know you’re out there somewhere and we appreciate your support. Enjoy your summer hiatus and stay tuned for September 1.

Katie Sulau

Dear readers,
Well, here it is, the ninth and last issue of TBG for this school year. May came along unexpectedly fast, and now instead of mapping out next month’s storyboard, I am paging through every issue from this year, and damn it’s been a good one. The launch of our Year in Review print issue just a few days ago topped it all off perfectly, and if you’d like to check it out before you pick one up on campus or at local bookstores and coffee shops, click here.
This issue may mark the end of my TBG career, but I really think TBG just might outlive us all. And if not for that long, then definitely through next year because the incoming editorial board is pretty amazing. I know I’m excited to make the transition to the other side of the computer screen as one of you – a loyal reader, and page through what next year’s crew comes up with.
So, thanks to all of this year’s writers who wrote, revised, and then revised some more and to our fabulous designers who pulled through every month. And an enormous thank you goes out to the best group of editors I know. No monthly issue, launch party, print issue, or much of anything would have happened without you. And I miss edit nights already.
But most of all, thanks for reading. We know you’re out there somewhere and we appreciate your support. Enjoy your summer hiatus and stay tuned for September 1.

Katie Sulau

Dear readers,

Katie Sulau

Dear readers,
April is a monumental month for TBG. In addition to publishing our second to last online issue, we are in the midst of piecing together our third annual print issue, which will make its debut on April 25th. Our print issue will be a year in review featuring your favorite stories from the stacks of issues that have appeared online since September.
I know we’re excited to hold a culminating issue in our hands rather than clicking through it online, and we hope you are too. Please join us in celebrating our print issue and another fabulous year of TBG at our Print Issue Launch Party on April 25th. Schuler Books in Okemos has offered to host us from 3 to 5 pm and there will be plenty of food, drinks, and fine reading material for everyone. Oh, and remember the “Tell A Story, Get A Brownie” guy from Megan Durisin’s November story named “Why Wells?” He’ll be providing the entertainment. This time, it’ll be in the form of guitar strumming, not fiction and baked goods.
So, please mark the 25th on your calendar. We want to meet people like you who read our issues anonymously for the entire year. Until then, don’t move from behind your computer screen and eat this fresh, new April issue right up.
Yours,
Katie Sulau

Dear Lou Anna,
I am proud to say that I go to a school that is making an effort to protect our planet. I am proud that I am able to recycle in my dorm building. I am proud that at the beginning of fall semester I was provided with a bag to store my recyclables. But we’re still not holding ourselves to as high of standards as we could be.
James Madison freshman Tabitha Skervin said that the university is doing a good job by giving the students the option to recycle. She said she doesn’t know any Case Hall residents who don’t recycle, and that she thinks that’s because it’s so easy.
“It’s like a why-not situation,” Skervin said. “I already have the basket; the place is downstairs.”
Although she’s happy that she is able to recycle in her dorm, Skervin said she is often disappointed by the state of the recycling room in Case Hall. Skervin said that when she passes the recycling room the lights are often left on, needlessly using energy. When she recycles her own materials, she notices that other students do not do a good job taking care of their recyclables.
[daugsquote]“There are cardboard boxes, plastic bottles, paper and newspaper inside the trash can in the recycling room,” Skervin said. “I don’t understand why you would go all the way over to the recycling room just to throw something away when the plastic bottle thing is two feet away.”
But we still can check recycling off the list. What’s left is to reuse, and most importantly to reduce. And don’t get me wrong: Recycling is important, but it’s not the ultimate answer. The best way to reduce our impact on the planet is to reduce our consumption of its resources.
And with that, Lou Anna, we could use some work.
Let’s take the renovation of Holden Hall for an example of excessive consumption. Holden Hall now has a game room, a kitchen and lobbies that look like the Starship Enterprise. There are 12 flat-screen TVs in the hall, many of which are often turned on with nobody watching them.
History junior Edward Daugs is living in Holden Hall for his third year. He said that only about half the TVs in the lobby are frequently used, but he said the TVs are good in some ways. If students cannot afford to have a TV in their own rooms, they have the opportunity to watch it in the lobbies. The middle area of Holden was almost always empty last year, Daugs said. He said that the renovation was good for that reason, but that not enough thought was put into the entrances to the building.
“Now the entryways are totally wasted space,” Daugs said. “There’s a TV with no couches in front of it.”
Because the first floor of Holden, where he lives, doesn’t have a study lounge, Daugs often goes to the area outside of Sparty’s to study. If the nearby TV is on, Daugs asks if anyone is watching it. If nobody is, which usually is the case, he turns it off.
“They’re sitting there burning up power all day,” Daugs said. “The ones in the entrance lobby are usually turned on to the Weather channel, so you have a flat-screen TV telling you if it’s going to rain.”
Although he said that the university is really expanding its recycling program, Daugs finds some parts of the Go Green initiative ironic.
“They’ll print off reminders to recycle, and I’ll look in the trash can and it’s full of those reminders,” Daugs said.
He suggested the university print double-sided fliers or just send e-mail. Fliers about recycling are not the only ironic thing that have come out of MSU’s Go Green initiative. Mobile billboards are another. These billboards are pulled by trucks that drive around campus advertising things like enrolling in summer classes. Sometimes they even remind students to recycle. These are things that could certainly be brought to our attention through something like e-mail.
E-mail is an easy, environmentally friendly way to get information out to students. It doesn’t require any paper to print on or any gasoline to distribute it. It should be the main way that the university communicates with students.
Amidst the ironic mobile billboards and the 12 flat-screen TVs, there is one campus organization that really gets it: the Resident Hall Association (RHA). RHA is the on-campus student government that helps students communicate with the directors of the residence halls. It was at an RHA meeting that representatives from Residence Life brought up the idea of a trayless cafeteria to see what students thought. Not using trays would save money, water use and soap use. The idea was given good feedback and now Yakeley is completely trayless. RHA also helped to bring recycling facilities to the residence halls.[carol]
In order to conserve paper, RHA advertises mostly on RHA TV, tries to recycle all of its posters and distributes its meetings’ minutes through e-mail instead of print. The RHA Campus Center Cinemas and Movie Office system are also online and use almost no paper.
As well as focusing on reducing paper consumption, RHA has done other things to promote sustainability, like distributing reusable water bottles to dorm residents and advertising with Frisbees made of totally recyclable material.
Journalism senior Jenni Lewis, RHA’s director of PR and Advertising, is proud of MSU’s Go Green initiative. She especially likes that MSU has made the initiative so visible. “It’s a huge accomplishment for the university,” Lewis said.
Lewis said she’s impressed that MSU has taken the first step towards conservation because she knows that a lot of campuses haven’t. She knows that this first step will have to be followed by a second and a third before the university is really sustainable.
That second and third step may start online. “They are still not on the digital form of advertising,” Lewis said. “Students, we’re on Facebook. We’re using all these social networks. They could do something with that and maybe even reach more people.”
Lou Anna, I know you’re trying. We all are. Our culture is shifting from having excessive consumerism to being environmentally aware, and it’s hard to make a university that reflects both of those things. But if MSU’s truly going to be a world-grant institution, we need to be aggressive about protecting that world we’re a part of.