Now, a year into her continuing sustainability role, Carolyn can share some hard learned lessons about culture change, applicability, and going green.  As her collaborator on the original sustainability plan, I wanted to ask her a few questions about her adventures in sustainability at the K-12 school level.

Carolyn Anthon, Johns Hopkins graduate student.

Q: What have been your biggest challenges?

I think the most challenging aspect of our sustainability adventure at my school is changing behavior. Status quo is easy to maintain, and overcoming that – even with folks who are on board with the idea of sustainability – has proven quite difficult. Also, I found it challenging to get students involved. The change has to come from within in order to create buy-in and sense of ownership within the community. I could list more roadblocks and hurdles, but these are the two biggest things that come to mind.

Q: What were your easy wins?

The easiest win was creating a sustainability committee almost immediately after delivery of the sustainability plan. Following that, we’ve started a GOOS (good on one side) paper collection in several areas of the building to capture and reuse paper one more time before it hits the recycling bin. A group of students is currently campaigning to have a meatless lunch day once per week all year long in support of climate change and sustainability. Plus the school had already reached some of the low-hanging fruit, so much of what lies ahead is more challenging.

Q: How did staff, teachers, and students respond to “sustainability”?

This question makes me chuckle. In my naiveté, I didn’t realize that there would be so many different responses! Based on the survey we conducted before the sustainability plan, most folks really saw sustainability the same as recycling. Others saw it as being “green” or conserving resources. Once we began talking about it some more in the community, others began to see it as a long-term, never-ending effort to manage our resources in an efficient, financially responsible, and environmentally friendly way. The general response has been very positive – verbally – but the actions have yet to catch up with that spoken support. I’ve found that unless it’s easy or convenient to be sustainable, many just do whatever comes naturally to them. I fear I’ll always be pulling out compostables from the trash or telling people to be careful that they only have one plate for their lunch.

Q: Composting is a big action item for schools these days, what did your composting program look like?

Our composting program began spring 2012 with five pick-ups a week from Envirelation. I think we are very fortunate to be working with a company that takes ALL food scraps so no sorting or scraping is necessary. Envirelation also accepts waxy paper, such as dixie cups, paper napkins, and our compostable dinnerware and utensils. Waste stations adorn each lunch room with additional compost scrap pails in faculty lounges and the on-site kitchen. Our staff has been mindful of purchasing compostable-only materials for serving, so this year we’ve also replaced all fancy plastic cups used for campus events with a compostable option. Thus far we’ve decreased our regular trash pick-ups from five times to twice per week. I hope to see continued decrease as waste sorting improves.

Q: Hindsight is 20/20 they say. What do you wish you knew a year ago that could have helped you?

I wish I had a better idea of the structure for decision-making within my school. I also wish that I was more assertive and confident when delivering information. Without an official title, I’m just a volunteer advocate for a volunteer committee. Getting things done seems to get hampered by that trivial missing epithet. Finally, I really wish I knew how painfully slow the process of change would be. I think I would have been better prepared for the frustrations associated and appreciated the easy-wins much earlier.

Q: Do you have any advice for someone starting a sustainability program in their school?

I think the first thing you need to do after getting permission to start one is to establish buy-in. If you don’t already have a group of folks pumped-up about sustainability who are willing to share in the advocacy with you – and even if you do – go out there and get buy-in from the students, faculty, and staff. Connect their actions to reasoning for change. Show them the powerful photographs of Chris Jordan’s Midway series. Talk about the importance of the compost cycle to our agricultural process. Ask your community to think about one action that they could do to make a difference and have them each make a pledge. And realize that you’re not alone in the good fight, but that you will need a lot of patience and fortitude to persevere.

Carolyn Anthon, graduated from the MS in Environmental Science and Policy Program in 2012.

Jessica Riehl, will graduate in 2013 with an MS in Environmental Science and Policy.

Noble Discoverer by jkbrooks85 via flickr

Shell Oil to suspend drilling for 2013

Big news this week as Shell Oil Company announced the decision to suspend drilling in the Arctic Ocean for 2013. Give them some applause, if you’d like, for taking safety precautions, but hold off on the standing-ovation; they plan to resume drilling in 2014.

Big Food = Big Problems

Research by Oxfam America shows that big food companies like General Mills and Kellogg’s are “failing the poor.” This negative impact is a direct hit to their supply chains, which are made up of the folks in developing countries that supply the land, labor, water and commodities needed for production.

Shanghai, China adopting urban farming practices

Shanghai, China turns to urban farming as the city grows and demand for food rises. This is just one aspect of the Sustainable Urban Masterplan for Shanghai, which includes plans for vertical farms and community gardens.

Australia reef shallows at risk

Increasing evidence points to global warming as a major contributor to the impending extinction of the coral reefs. The Great Barrier Reef is “likely to pass critical damage thresholds in roughly 30 years” due to extreme changes in acidity and temperature shifts.

shore crab by Diving Ben via flickr

Crabs bothered by noise pollution

Did you know that ship noise affects crab metabolism? A study out of the University of Bristol found that reducing harbor noises may lead to higher yields per season, as there’s no evidence of crab adaptation in the form of noise acclimatization.

feature coral image: Great Barrier Reef by Phil Camill via flickr

Recycling means different things to different people. For some, it is second nature to separate every paper, glass, plastic, and aluminum item from regular trash. Others simply don’t bother. While many are familiar with the outcome of not recycling (haven’t we all seen images of the tortured waterbirds and sea turtles entangled in our waste?), how many of us really understand what actually happens with those materials we set aside to be recycled? Words like the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” are enough to make us think twice about throwing away plastics numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. But are our efforts really worth the trouble? How much of the stuff in the recycling bin actually gets recycled?

Recycling in New York City.

Both of us unquestionably, to a fault, separate every last piece of paper, cardboard, plastic, glass and aluminum. Shannon lives in New York City where she finds sorting and saving to be quite the undertaking. Real estate is not cheap, so excessive space for storing recyclables is generally not abundant. And since recycling is only picked up once a week in NYC, it begins to take up a lot of said real estate in the tiny space that Shannon can afford. Carolyn lives in a less urban area and consequently has more space for storing recyclables between weekly pick-ups. However, she still wonders just how many contents of her recycling bin actually get repurposed.

After contemplating this issue, we realized how many gaps we had in our knowledge of something we so wholeheartedly take part in.  So we started to ask the “hard questions.”  What actually gets recycled? Does that recycling actually have a quantifiable impact? Since we didn’t know the answers to these questions, we wondered if there was a better way to disseminate this information to the public.  When Shannon tried to research the issues locally, the results were utterly overwhelming, and she’s an environmentalist – imagine how the average citizen must feel!

We intend to tackle the recycling questions mentioned above, among others, in an upcoming recycling series on the blog. What are some of your recycling questions and concerns? Are you familiar with the specifics to your area?  Hopefully these and many other perplexing questions will be answered.

Shannon and Carolyn are self-diagnosed recycling addicts and look forward to demystifying the process together.

At the February 13^th informational meeting, Shonte Eldridge (Director of Communications and Community Affairs for DPW) summarized the preliminary project plan to a room filled with over 40 concerned citizens and the Vice President of Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP – one of two engineering firms contracted as a consultant to the project. The Friends of Druid Hill Park, a nonprofit association dedicated to maintaining and protecting the park, was also in attendance to promote preserving the historic character of the lake and its surrounding environment.

Currently, water is delivered from the Montebello treatment plant to Druid Hill Reservoir as finished drinking water, which then undergoes one final chlorination phase on its way into the water mains for distribution. The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) mandates that open-air reservoirs for drinking water now be protected, either by covering them or adding an additional treatment phase using ultraviolet radiation to kill certain bacteria. DPW initially proposed a UV treatment site to the southeast of Druid Hill Reservoir, which Reservoir Hill residents spoke out against and successfully vetoed.  Aside from the public’s disapproval of the plan, the City maintains that the UV option is now off the table due to predictions that in the near future the Feds will update regulations once again to make storage tanks the only option, thus making it the most practical option (from a long-term fiscal standpoint) to install the tanks now. Under Baltimore’s latest plan for compliance with LT2, the lake at Druid Hill Park will no longer be part of the water supply.

The concept map shared at the informational meeting showed two underground storage tanks to the west of the lake, with slight reshaping of the northwestern lakeshore to accommodate the tanks. With the reservoir no longer a part of the drinking water system, new opportunities for its use will arise.  Although recreation is currently prohibited on the reservoir, Eldridge emphasized that community input would be sought at future discussions hosted by the Department of Parks & Recreation to consider options such as fishing, boating, paddleboats, and even swimming.

 Citizens voiced many concerns, from “how will you keep the lake from drying up?” to what may happen to Taylor’s Grove and a newly commissioned art sculpture that lies in the path of construction. Eldridge made it clear that the precise impact of the project on the tree canopy will remain unknown until they enter the design phase. She also advised that scientists are investigating evaporation rates to determine whether there is an actual risk that the water level cannot be maintained naturally and via the stormwater system from the nearby Maryland Zoo, which funnels into the lake.

Many citizens are afraid that once the lake becomes a recreation asset, funding will be limited – especially considering that the entire project is a regional partnership among stakeholders without a vested interest a Baltimore City park, despite its historic significance. When Eldridge mentioned the possibility of rerouting finished drinking water from the proposed adjacent holding tanks in order to compensate for evaporation in the lake, community members immediately questioned how DPW would convince regional partners to agree to using drinking water to keep a Baltimore City lake filled for recreational purposes.  There was a palpable air of skepticism among the audience that the proposed scenarios would come to fruition and that they wouldn’t be left with a dried up lakebed and a ravaged landscape within their beloved park.

Karen Moran of WRA, LLP volunteered to explain why certain areas – what the community may consider to be more desirable locations– were simply not an option for the site of the two underground tanks. Drinking water will be fed by gravity from the Montebello treatment plant to the Druid Hill tanks. The tank capacities will be 18 million gallons (400 foot diameter) and 35 million gallons (550 foot diameter). Because the ground and the bedrock below rises significantly to the west of the existing lake, there is a finite area that is at the proper depth to adequately accept the water flowing downstream into the Druid Hill system.

In response, community members proposed using pumps to move the water through the system in order to overcome the limitations of geology and gravity, in the hopes that the proposed site could be relocated. However this would significantly increase the price tag of the project, already estimated at $112 million, in addition to adding the unwanted eyesore of buildings associated with a pumping station. Others asked if the tanks could be moved to various areas where installation may be less disruptive to current recreational uses and aesthetics of the historic park. Eldridge concluded the exchange by summarizing, “the engineers are telling us, this is where they gotta go.”

With threats of a stop order and requests for a field trip to show them exactly where the tanks would be buried, the conversation with the community is far from over. The design phase for the plan is scheduled to be complete by February 28, 2014, and the mandated deadline for federal compliance with LT2 is June 25, 2018. There is a $37,500 fine per day for each day that project completion is delayed. DPW has not offered an earlier target deadline for the project.

Do you think the community’s concerns are legitimate in the face of a federal mandate to secure drinking water? The Reservoir Hill neighborhood successfully vetoed the UV option, with its lesser pricetag ($42 million) and more sustainable water treatment method. Does the greater community deserve the same concessions if they are dissatisfied with the current proposal? What options does the City of Baltimore have, when faced with a fixed deadline and stiff penalty fines, to please the community while taking action that is both environmentally and fiscally responsible?