Institute the Ban

by: Emma Erickson

We live in a world where we are at odds with our environment. For most people, day-to-day life is a race to see how much of this planet’s resources we can consume and how much we can contaminate the natural world. This accusation should take you aback. You probably don’t consciously perform these actions and would admonish a person for partaking in them blatantly. Our problem is that environmental degradation is built into the way our society functions and the cyclical systems in which we all operate. It is the desire to break these fundamental assumptions and status quo modes of operation that lead me to support banning water bottle use on the campus of the University of Michigan.

The idea for the ban originated last year with Maggie Oliver, an LSA senior and chair of the Michigan Student Assembly’s Environmental Issues Commission (EIC). Hoping to improve UM’s environmental impact by instituting a ban on the sale of plastic water bottles by the University, Oliver and the EIC circulated a petition in support of these goals during the Winter term of last year. The petition drive was highly successful, garnering thousands of signatures, and Oliver hopes to take her ban request to the Board of Regents to actually institute change in University policy.
So why should the regents support the ban? Most important, there is an overwhelming environmental case against the sale of plastic water bottles. The plastic used to make these bottles is manufactured from corn, petroleum, and other chemicals. Not only does the extraction of petroleum pose environmental risks (see the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico last summer), but water bottles themselves also generate an enormous quantity of waste. In 2006, for instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, the United States produced roughly one million tons of plastic PET water bottles, three quarters of which ended up in landfills, and will take thousands of years to decompose.
There are also individual health risks entailed by the use of plastic bottles. Though most plastic in its finished form is not toxic, certain types—including phthalates, a variety found in many plastic bottles—can leach into food. The Environmental Protection Agency and independent researchers have suggested that these plastics may disrupt the endocrine system or act as carcinogens.

Given these arguments, though, you might wonder why we should specifically ban water bottles. Plenty of other soft drinks and beverages are packaged in plastic bottles; shouldn’t we ban them, too? In an ideal world, such a broad ban would be a perfect outcome, but given the constraints of the real world, there are a couple reasons why banning water bottles specifically is a good idea. One is that nearly half of all “purified” bottled water begins as municipal water. In other words, by buying this water we are paying for water that is readily available at our taps and drinking fountains. Additionally, according to the National Resources Defense Council, over 90% of the cost of a water bottle is not water related, like packaging, shipping, and marketing. It is cheaper and simpler for both water providers and consumers to deliver water at the tap, at fountains, or at refill stations. This argument, of course, does not apply to Gatorade or Red Bull, but it is a reasonable and workable solution for the delivery of water. Hopefully in the future we will develop a means of providing individuals with dispersed access to beverages in containers whose production has no negative impact; for now, banning plastic water bottles in order to reduce the environmental, health and economic costs of plastic bottle production and consumption is the best place to start tackling this issue.

Finally, critics of the ban may object that, by eliminating bottled water for purchase at UM, we would be infringing on consumer choice and rights of the University community. Shouldn’t everyone have the freedom to choose whatever beverage he or she desires? This concern is misguided for two reasons. Governmental and institutional regulations already ban the sale of certain products—we are now a smoke free campus after all—and the water bottle ban simply builds on this logic of restriction in the interest of protecting the health and well-being of consumers.

Of course UM students would still have access to the very same water they currently find in purchased bottles. By combing the ban with a massive education campaign that encourages students to use personal, reusable water bottles, and by installing more refill stations in buildings around campus, we can make it clear that good, clean water is more easily and cheaply available to them than ever.

As long as bottled water continues to be available and sustainability education is slow, people will continue to use them. Our University is a sustainability leader in many ways, but it lags behind many of its peer institutions in operational standards for environmental friendliness. If the regents boldly accept MSA’s petition, they would back the University’s claim of being a leader in sustainability and help the student body and the entire UM community lead the way to a greener, more sustainable future.

COUNTERPOINT:

Don’t Institute The Ban

by: Avery Robinson

We live in a highly disposable world where everything comes packaged, almost always in a bottle or a container. Not just milk and juice, but herbs, fruit, memory cards and even water.

Disposable and recyclable plastic bottles, like almost all conventional plastics, are synthetic materials derived from petroleum. These petrochemicals form the basis of our consumer-driven economy. While comprising a significant portion of our economy, plastics undeniably pose disposal problems. Despite these problems, however, I disagree with the MSA proposal that plastic water bottles be banned from U of M’s campus.
First, consider the water itself. The odds are that the water you buy at convenience stores and vending machines is very similar to the water coming out of the tap because it is, more often than not, tap water. A number of very competent and effective federal and state agencies regulate bottled water production. In Michigan, this includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) Water Section, and some municipal water authorities. The FDA applies very similar standards to water bottle production as it does to other foods and beverages. Therefore, if the argument for banning water bottles is based on poor regulation (and safety), it is flawed. But there is much more to this ban than just plastic bottles and water quality.

Just because you can get the water in that flimsy, petrochemical bottle from a tap does not mean we should ban bottled water. If that were the case, we should also ban bags of ice.

The environmental costs of trucking water are not a valid basis for a ban. Do we ban bananas? Coffee? Tuna? By focusing on environmental concerns alone, we ignore the strong impact such a ban would have on public health, social justice, and civil liberties.

We should allow our state legislators to handle the environmental concerns around recycling and waste. Almost every water bottle is recyclable, but a consumers’ only incentive to recycle these bottles are peer pressure and a sense of altruism. These disincentives do not apply to other returnable goods in our state. In fact, Michigan is one of the leading states in terms of cans and bottles being returned and recycled. If our legislators provided bottled water deposits, I guarantee that recycling rates would skyrocket.

Second, let’s talk about health. Drinking water—bottled or in a glass—is way healthier than drinking pop (read soda or Coca-Cola for you non-Michiganders). Water contains no calories, no sugar, no salt and no extra chemicals. The same is not true for other bottled beverages, which contain large quantities of calories, sugars, salts and chemicals few of us can pronounce.

We must consider all health effects of the ban including its unintended consequences. By removing bottled water from the shelves of vending machines and campus cafés, such a ban would push students toward making unhealthy consumptive decisions. Studies have shown that drinking pop and other non-water refreshments can increase the risk of diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

Third, removing bottled water from campus stores and vending machines may infringe on the freedoms and civil liberties we enjoy as Americans. If I want to purchase a bottle of water instead of a bottle of carbonated water laced with corn syrup, caffeine, caramel color and natural and artificial flavors, I should be able to. Why should my dollar be disenfranchised in a way that benefits already-subsidized big agriculture and big business?
Fourth, let’s talk about social policy and education. I always carry a reusable water bottle with me, but is it reasonable to expect 40,000 students, 30,000 faculty/staff and thousands of campus visitors to always have a reusable water bottle available? Is it reasonable that we expect others to know about our quirky Ann Arbor laws? Do we have enough drinking fountains on campus to handle a surge in use?

While banning water bottle sales on campus may help reduce plastic waste and related environmental degradation, there is a better way to solve our plastic bottle problem without harming public health or infringing on the civil liberties of consumers. We should educate the campus and the community about the benefits of reusing a water bottle. Some ways include: becoming more cognizant of our own environmental impact; being able to quench our thirst beyond 8, 12 or 20 oz; finding a great place for stickers; and making a conscious decision to mitigate unnecessary consumerism and waste. We can also strive to ensure that prices of bottled water and pop adequately reflect the cost of these items. This means prices should not just be based on the cost of production and transportation, but also the ecological effects of resource extraction.

If we do not understand or internalize these messages, then there will never be a cultural change in our consumptive habits. We must all encourage one another to reuse our water bottles (and other containers). I will continue to use my Nalgene and aluminum water bottles and encourage others to do so. Your friends may not be aware of this, so please remind them—reduce, reuse, recycle, and most importantly, be responsible.

Edited by: Aaron Bekemeyer and Matt Friedrichs

When I began reading through the stances of candidates from both parties I was struck by how similar and unspecific they were.  Perhaps this has always been the case and I have simply been unaware of it, but I did not feel particularly inspired or attached to either side.  I am not saying that I want to see this campus divided by intense political debate along party lines (its working so well for the country), but the broad based appeal made by both parties in the MSA general election seemed bland and slightly shallow.  As I pondered this, Karlos Marks swirled back into my head and I thought he certainly added a little spice to this election.

The major issue I had with the stances of both parties was they threw a lot of big goals out there without focus or support.  I understand there are limitations on what can be put on the online ballot, but even if both parties have action plans ready it would take much more than a year and more of their effort than their summaries indicated.  For example the Affirmative Action party promised a tuition increase freeze, but to what end?  Lower tuition costs?  Fighting the forces that are raising tuition with a concentrated student movement would be a massive effort and I didn’t see it happening on top of all the other promises the party made.

Overall, both parties presented valuable goals, but I didn’t feel that my supporting them would lead to their successful achievement.  My suggestion, pick one thing, maybe two, to focus on and actually get students engaged.  Speaking of engagement– the only encouragement I received to vote all day was from… you guessed it: Karlos Marks. Maybe that’s why he got the second highest number of votes in the election.

by: Dr. Christopher McKay

Are we likely to find extraterrestrial life? Do we have a plan if we do? My answers to these questions are yes and no, respectively.

From spacecraft observations we can certainly rule out any widespread life or intelligent life on the other worlds of our Solar System.  However, there very well may be microbial life dormant or below the surface on Mars, Europa (a moon of Jupiter), or Enceladus (a moon of Saturn).  There are four reasons to be optimistic that life will be found on other worlds.  First, life is composed of elements such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, which are common in the universe. Second, all life on Earth requires liquid water to grow or reproduce, and we have clear evidence that such water has existed on Mars in the past (and that there is currently liquid water below the ice on Europa and Enceladus).  Third, the organic molecules of life such as amino acids can be produced easily in non-biological processes, and organic molecules are found in many places in the outer Solar System.  Finally, life appeared quite early in Earth’s history, soon after the surface cooled enough for liquid water to be present. All this bodes well for the search for life beyond the Earth, and so we search.

What we search for is not just life, but convincing evidence of a second genesis of life—in other words, a different form of life.  We now realize that all known life on Earth is part of a single genetic and biochemical system descendant from a common ancestor.  If we find evidence of life on another world we will want to compare its genetic and biochemical composition to that of life on Earth and determine if that life is different, implying an independent and separate origin.  To make this comparison, we need biologically intact material–either dead or alive. Fossils are not enough for this test.

However, we are not really ethically prepared to take on our search for a second genesis of life.  What do we do once we find it? There are three possibilities: we remove it, we ignore it, or we help it.

Some have argued that if we discover a second genesis of life on Mars, we can simply remove it, put it in storage in the laboratory and then continue undeterred with the expansion of Earth life and humans on Mars. Others have argued for a non-interference principle: if we discover a second genesis of life on Mars, we quarantine the planet. I don’t accept either of these points of view. I argue that if we discover a second genesis of life on Mars, we ought to take active steps to enhance that life and alter Mars so as to allow that life to thrive.

Proposing to help Martian life assumes that we can know that it needs help. I think it is safe to make that assumption based on the fact that any life on Mars would not exercise dominant control of the cycles of light elements such as nitrogen and carbon, as life on Earth does.  Perhaps life on Mars did have such control in the past.  Regardless, we should determine what Martian life needs and what environment suits it and then alter Mars so that this indigenous life can globally thrive – dominating the cycles of the light elements.

Contamination from Earth poses a serious problem for restoration ecology on Mars.  If Mars were altered to allow for life to spread, any contamination from Earth would also spread and possibly compete with the Martian life. We could not be certain of the outcome. For this reason, we would need to remove all viable Earth life from Mars before the restoration of habitable conditions could commence.

We know that there are viable Earth microorganisms on Mars because all spacecraft to Mars launched after the Viking missions in 1976 were not sterilized.  The international committee that sets policy determined that the conditions on Mars were such that no organisms from Earth could grow or reproduce.  Thus, sterilization was no longer required. The Pathfinder lander, the two Mars Exploration Rovers, the Beagle 2 lander, and the Phoenix lander each carried about 100,000 viable microorganisms to Mars.  None of these contaminants can grow or reproduce on Mars, and any exposed to the Martian sunlight are rapidly destroyed by the biocidal solar ultraviolet light.  However microbes left inside the vehicles and shielded from the ultraviolet light would remain dormant yet viable.  But if conditions on Mars were altered (by human or natural means) so that water once again flowed on the surface, this terrestrial contamination would wash out and could begin to grow. In these instances, we would have to remove all Earth contaminants to let Mars’ life develop isolated. It is essential that all future exploration of Mars be designed to be biologically reversible, where any interference or contaminants from Earth can be removed. This preserves our options in the event we discover what we’re searching for: a second genesis of life.

Life as We Don’t Know it

by: Dr. Maragret R. McLean

A few years ago, I wrote the following:  “All I really need to know I learned from ‘Star Trek’—to seek out new civilizations, to keep my phaser set on stun, and never to put all the officers in one shuttlecraft.”  But now, as the possibilities of commercial space travel, space colonization and discovering a second genesis of life become realities, I think that we need something more—a deep consideration of what it would mean to discover “new civilizations” populated by extraterrestrial others.  What would it mean to discover life as we don’t know it?  How should we relate to unearthly environments and new life forms?  In other words, what would it mean for us to take seriously a duty of cosmic concern?

Although unquenched curiosity and a deep desire to understand the universe around us are primary motivators for going where no one has gone before, there are increasing appeals to the necessity of leaving our earthly home in order to survive.  A decade ago, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking warned us,

“I don’t think that the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space.  There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet.  But I’m an optimist.  We will reach out to the stars.”

A more likely destination than the stars would be to our neighbor planet Mars.  It seems possible that we could “terraform” Mars—that is, transform it into a new Earth using University of Wisconsin botanist James Graham’s recipe:  a large dose of heat and a smattering of bacteria, lichens and, eventually, redwoods.  This is an intriguing possibility for some and a horrifying thought for others.

Perhaps a more fascinating possibility is that we will unearth—actually, “unmars”—microbial life below the surface of the red planet.  Then what do we do?  Observe it?  Collect it?  Study it?  Send it back to earth?

Before succumbing to Hawking’s appeal to get off of our gradually decaying terrestrial home and spread into space, we would do well to recognize that our track record here on earth is suspect regarding how we treat one another and the environment.  Indeed, it is increasingly hard to deny our own culpability in unchecked pollution and the warming of planet earth. How can we be trusted in developing a new celestial environment when we hardly understand how to sustainably care for our own?

As we venture far from terra firma, we could use a good dose of humility.  If we go where no one has gone before, there are likely to be unintended consequences. We need to be conscious and humble primarily because we don’t know what we don’t know.  Further, the impact of the decisions we make and the actions we take today will affect not only—perhaps not even primarily—us but also future generations of humans and—assuming that Earth may be only one of many environments where life can emerge—novel forms of extraterrestrial life.

We should ask not what we can gain from the cosmos, but what we can do to understand and care for the cosmos.  The answer does not lie solely in cultivating Martian life to the best of our ability. This decision can only be made through negotiating bioethical concerns. Let me suggest the following guidelines for exercising cosmic concern:

1.  Cosmos preservation insists that we value other worlds and life forms for their own sake, apart from our curiosity, interest, or profit.

2.  Cosmos conservation mandates care for the universe’s resources, environments, and life forms, including consideration of our impact on extraterrestrial life and evolution.

3.  Cosmos sustainability cautions us to refrain from irreversible harm, raising the question of what would constitute “harm” to Mars and other celestial bodies and to life as we don’t know it.  At a minimum, we must guard against “forward contamination,” the introduction of terrestrial microbes to other worlds, and “backward contamination,” bringing extraterrestrial microbes back home.

4.  Cosmos stewardship holds us accountable for our actions, compelling us to consider how our actions affect others—both human and not— including how we affect our vast surroundings and the future.  From research in subatomic space, we have learned that mere observation can change the characteristics of what is observed.  Are we obligated to leave certain areas of the cosmos unseen, uninvestigated, or untouched by human hands or rover probes?

5.  Respect for the extraterrestrial other invites a deep concern for the intrinsic value of the cosmos and the life within it, not only “charismatic fauna” such as extraterrestrial life but also microbes and non–carbon-based life.

There is much about the cosmos that we do not know, and so we explore.  But we ought not go unreflectively where no one has gone before. These guidelines can prevent exploration from turning into exploitation and should inform our journeys before we take steps into the final frontier.

Edited by Lexie Tourek and Tanya Rogovyk

Only weeks after the student government election, we are already seeing a push towards more improvement on campus. Adam Rubenfire of The Michigan Daily explains:

LSA-SG President Steven Benson said the organization is trying to get the University to expand its Blue Bucks program so that the currency associated with University meal plans is accepted at local off-campus restaurants. Benson said the organization decided to make the push after approximately 66 percent of students who answered a poll question on the LSA-SG ballot said they would eat at off-campus establishments at least one more time a week if they accepted Blue Bucks.

I see this as a step in the right direction for both the university and local Ann Arbor businesses. From personal experience I can say that I’ve had to take my business elsewhere after finding out I couldn’t use my Blue Bucks in a particular university location.  Students always have their MCard on them, but not always cash. It’s kind of a no-brainer that students with more payment options are more likely to visit new restaurants on campus.

The issue that local business owners will have to face, however, is whether or not this boost in sales necessarily means a boost in revenue. The Daily article mentions that “current participating businesses are required to return 3.5 percent of the total of each sale in which Blue Bucks are used.”

Lets break that down. Say you’re buying a $5 sandwich. The processing fee will be around 18 cents. That means just one extra customer’s purchase (of a $5 sandwich as well) covers approximately 28 people’s processing fees. It only seems logical for local restaurants to support the implementation of such a program.

As for me, I don’t use Blue Bucks. But I do use my head. Expanding this program to local businesses will benefit the university as well as small business owners here in Ann Arbor, which in the long run will also benefit me as well as the rest of the students on campus.

(Photo from U-M Housing Plan website)

Barack Obama
Denard Robinson
Harry Potter
Mickey Mouse
Mary Sue Coleman
Sarah Palin
Brett Favre’s Penis
All 33 Chilean Miners
Lizard People
Rodney King
Patrick Mallet
Jimmy John
Steve Jobs
Mr. Rogers
Chuck Norris
Henry Ford
Santa Claus
Hermione Granger
Snookie
Scarface
The Joker (You know, from the batman)
Sirius Black
The Situation
LSA SG Is Legit
Easter Bunny
Dr. Seuss
Lord Voldemort
Cupid
Ron Weasley
Justin Bieber
Lady Gaga
Aqua Budha
Albert Einstein
Andrew Shirvell
Bo Schembechler
Vincent Smith
Bill Clinton
A Zombie
I vote for the guy that created the $3,000 MSA Website
Ron Paul
Donald Duck
The Dark Lord
Richard Nixon
GO FOR THE GOLDBERG
Darth Vader
Mary Markley
George Bush Jr.
Albus Dumbledore
Kofi Annan
Betsy Barbour
Tony T. Tiger
George Washington
Congressman John D. Dingell
George Walker Bush
Jigglypuff
Homer Simpson
Clifford the Big Red Dog
Apple

Which of these write in candidates do you think should have won?

The 2010 LSA Student Government Ballot Questions address concerns such as these. The results of these questions will directly impact representatives’ voting decisions.

The amount of emphasis the student body places on these questions is usually lackluster and insufficient. If a student voices his or her concern and votes that the LSA course guide should post exam schedules for each class and this measure is passed, then the student will now have the ability and therefore the responsibility to form his or her own exam schedule.

People with no power are victimized and can complain. These ballot questions, however, offer the student body a chance to break his cycle of self-pity. Let your voice be heard tomorrow so that efficient change can occur.

For the Students, By the Students

by: Michael Rorro

Student government should focus on issues relevant to improving student life on campus. To accomplish this, governing organizations should serve students in three primary capacities. First, student government should be a resource for students and their organizations on campus.  Second, these governments should represent student voice, ensuring that it is not lost in University discussions.  Finally, student government should cultivate leadership skills in its members and students at large.

Each student at the University pays a fixed amount of fees to the various student governments each semester.  The money is, in fact, quite nominal in comparison with tuition, and remains less than $20 per academic year.   Economically speaking, do students at the University of Michigan get $20 of utility from these mandated student fees?  Though there are improvements to the system that can be made, I believe they do.

The governmental structure at the University of Michigan consists of legislative bodies in each of the major schools and colleges, councils in various communities at the University (Residential Halls, Greek Life), and a central student government called the Michigan Student Assembly.  Each of these organizations has funding mechanisms which empower student organizations through financial grants.  About 60 percent of the student fees helps student organizations provide program dispensations for campus groups.  This funding allows student government to fulfill its primary role as a resource for students and their organizations.

Student government should use the remainder of these designated fees to provide resources for University students.  Initiatives like Airbus, Advice Online and the “This Sucks” campaign directly impact student life and provide useful services for the campus population.  Moreover, in the creation and operation of these services, students at the University have the ability to take leadership roles and grow as individuals.

Government should also represent the voice of the student body to University administration and higher legislative bodies on issues that affect the University community.  In a university as large and decentralized as Michigan, this underrepresented voice is easily lost within the administration. It is student government’s job to continually push forrecognition so that students can be a part of creating the future of our University.  This responsibility is a difficult task as University initiatives are generally implemented over 4 to 5 years; therefore, the high turnover rate inherently disenfranchises students.

Additionally, in order for student government to be taken seriously by the University, it must focus on issues for which it can make a difference.  Student government does not produce measurable results for students by debating the Israel/Palestine conflict.  In my opinion, it actually weakens the connection between the elected representatives and their constituents.  In fact, student government is simply wasting its time passing resolutions calling for changes in international policy, as seen last year in the Michigan Student Assembly’s vote on United Nations involvement in the Middle East.  The UN Security Council does not care what MSA thinks, I am sure of that.

Though it is best for it to keep its nose out of international issues, student government should not be afraid to lobby for student interests on the city, state or national level.   State legislature budget proposals that involved the Michigan Promise Scholarship are a prime example of an issue on which the voice of student government should be heard.

In order to effectively build grassroots support, students must first trust that their peers in government are working for them. I believe that that trust is built by focusing on relevant issues and by tangibly improving student life on campus.

If I pay 20 bucks to student government, I expect to get my money’s worth.  Therefore, I believe that that government should seek to improve the quality of student life at the University of Michigan by funding programs.  Events like Earth Week, Gayz Craze, and Go Blue Beat OSU are all-inclusive events that enhance the campus community.  When it provides such programming for the university community, student government also allows students to develop leadership skills through work on these projects.

Students deserve a government that will work for them and allow them to leave their mark on the University of Michigan.  The governmental organizations must realize that they exist to be a resource for students on campus; student government should focus on improving student life at the University.  By providing measurable results, student government will gain the trust of UM students and will be able to effectively organize student opinion on relevant issues locally and beyond.