SMC Sustainability Blog

The land beneath the College rests on the border of the massive American and Pacific plates, slabs of the earth’s crust that ride atop molten rock. Over the last one hundred million years these plates have collided, pushed apart, and ground or slipped against each other, creating topography of varied elevations. Local faults, including the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras, mark the zone of plate convergence. As the landscape folded, warped, subsided, and thrust upward, wind and rushing water carved additional contours. Rivers and streams, fed by much more rainfall than in our time, deposited non-marine sediment in low- lying areas. Another type of sedimentary rock, containing seashells and other remnants of marine organisms, indicates that ocean waters periodically covered the heaving landscape.

Redwoods in Canyon, just outside present-day Moraga, Credit: Yelp

Between thirty million and ten thousand years ago, the land gradually assumed more familiar features. The coastline, carried north along the Pacific plate from Baja California, slid into place near its present location. Next, the great Sierra Nevada range (which is still rising), and younger coastal ranges emerged. The San Francisco Bay, our most recent landmark, took shape after the first people had arrived, and as the last ice age came to a close and contributed to rising sea levels. As the great North American glaciers retreated (beginning about twenty thousand years ago), the climate became warmer and drier. Older plant and animal species, like the mammoth, saber-toothed cat, three-toed horse, camel, and giant sloth, slipped into extinction. Redwoods, however, survived in isolated pockets—including those in nearby Canyon. New species evolved, providing sustenance for the area’s first human residents.

Beginning more than ten thousand years ago, Saint Mary’s and neighboring Moraga became home to a succession of people who subsisted upon the region’s natural bounty of plant and animal foods. Saclans, relatives of Miwoks and the most recent in a series of indigenous inhabitants, settled the area around 700 A.D. Like their predecessors, they found ample game (elk, deer, antelope, rabbits, beaver, grey squirrels, and wood rats, waterfowl) and an abundant supply of plant foods including the protein-rich acorn. Waterfowl, winging along the great Pacific flyway, darkened the daytime skies. Herds of elk and antelope roamed the grasslands in such numbers that they were likened to great herds of cattle by European explorers and settlers. During annual runs, the local streams filled with salmon and steelhead—their bodies so thick that they transformed the water into a seemingly solid, shimmering mass.

Like other early Californians, Saclans undoubtedly modified the landscape, using fire to burn brush and encourage the growth of grasses that attracted deer, elk and antelope. They also scattered seed to encourage the growth of favored plants near settlements, and pruned old growth from oaks and other seed/fruit-bearing plants. However, their long tenure on the land suggests a sustainable lifestyle, one that had minimal ecological impact. Indeed, Saclans regarded their plant and animal co-inhabitants as spiritual equals entitled to respect and even worship. They saw themselves as part of a sacred, well-ordered universe where no single being claimed dominion over others. Even their competitors or potential natural enemies—grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, foxes, bobcats, bald eagles, giant condors, and other large raptors—inspired reverence and awe.

Mission Dolores, 1851Credit: Found SF, Shaping San Francisco Archive 

The Saclan’s world shifted dramatically in 1776 with the arrival of Father Francisco Palou, Lt. Jose Moraga, sixteen soldiers, and a small band of prospective settlers of mixed Spanish, Indian and African descent. The travel-weary party soon established a settlement, mission, and presidio in what would later become San Francisco. Although situated across the bay, these new arrivals altered the environment in and around Saint Mary’s. They introduced non-native plants and animals, including European grasses, which gradually displaced many indigenous species over an ever-widening area. They also introduced diseases that had a devastating impact on the non-immune Indian population. The Coastanoans or Ohlones, who lived close to the mission, were the first victims of foreign microbes.  As many resisted incorporation into the mission system and sought refuge across the bay, they spread diseases to the Saclans and neighboring triblets. By 1794, following massive epidemics and accompanying cultural and economic disruption, a few Saclans abandoned their villages and opted for life across the bay at Mission Dolores. A majority, however, remained, attempting to follow their traditional way of life in shadow of a growing foreign presence.

In 1835 Joaquin Moraga, grandson of the co-founder of the San Francisco mission and presidio, and his cousin Juan Bernal acquired Saclan territory by petitioning the Mexican Assemby for a land grant. Saclans, with the stroke of a pen, were thus faced with a traumatic choice: either remain as landless, dependent laborers of Bernal and Moraga, or seek refuge inland with other tribes. Those who remained on the Moraga ranchero raised cattle for a burgeoning trade in hides and tallow and performed domestic chores within the household. In the meantime, environmental change, initiated by settlers and missionaries across the bay, accelerated.  Heavy trampling and close grazing of Moraga’s livestock aided the displacement of native plants. Hills, once green all year round with perennial bunch grasses, turned gold during the long dry season as European annuals took root. Antelope and elk, unwelcome competition on the grasslands, were killed for sport and meat. And the large predators—the grizzly, wolves, and mountain lions—met a similar fate. Streams, muddied by livestock, became less hospitable to salmon and steelhead.

In 1848, through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico ceded California to the United States. This development, along with the Gold Rush of 1849, brought thousands of land-hungry Anglo-American settlers to the region. Moraga, like other Mexican land grant holders, was required to prove that he had title to the land—a lengthy, costly legal process that bankrupted many Californios. While still in the process of establishing the legality of his claim, Moraga had to contend with Anglo squatters who simply settled on his land without permission. For example, in 1851, after lumbermen illegally stripped his redwood groves to provide timber for growing settlements, Moraga cut his losses and sold Redwood Canyon to the future founder of Layfayette, Elam Brown. Despite such pressures, Moraga still owned most of his original rancho at the time of his death in 1855. Thereafter, the land changed hands as his heirs sold or lost parcels to foreclosure. Over the next fifty-five years a series of investors held title, renting or leasing to ranchers and farmers while hatching various schemes to subdivide and develop the property. This led to additional changes on the land: clearing redwoods, oak, riparian woodlands, and chaparall for timber and to make way for farming and grazing; draining, damming, and diverting streams and wetlands for irrigation and flood control; slaughtering remaining elk, antelope, and grizzly bear populations to eliminate threat and competition with livestock; and importing (accidentally and intentionally) non-native plant and animal species.  As a consequence, many native species disappeared altogether, while others struggled to adapt to changed environmental conditions.

1927: The Saint Mary's College Construction SiteCredit: SMC Library Archives via Pinterest

Between 1912 and 1923, James Irvine, a Southern California entrepreneur, acquired title to almost all of the original rancho. His Moraga Company created an agricultural empire, hiring tenant farmers and sharecroppers to cultivate orchard crops (pears, walnuts, and peaches), grain and fodder, tomatoes, corn, beans, and squash. His tenants, in what a Collegian editorial would describe as “a medieval institution with modern methods,” paid rent to Irvine in crops, and exercised little control over day-to-day farm operations.  Saint Mary’s land was either too marshy or steep for farming and, thus escaped impacts associated with crop production. But cattle grazing continued, contributing to soil erosion and compaction, stream siltation, and destruction/displacement of native plant and animal communities.

In 1913, with the completion of the Oakland & Antioch Railroad, Irvine hatched various schemes to subdivide his non-agricultural property into saleable suburban housing tracts. His offer of 100 acres of free land to Saint Mary’s in 1927, brokered by two College alumni associated with the railroad and Moraga Land Company, was intended to advance these ambitions. The Brothers who inspected the site in the spring of 1927 were not impressed. Alighting from the train at the edge of the proposed site, the Brothers looked out over a marshy basin that received water from the surrounding hills. Nonetheless, they accepted the offer and purchased additional acreage.

The Brothers broke ground on May 15, 1927, the feast of St. John Baptist de la Salle, as Archbishop Hanna prayed, “May the buildings which grow from this earth house the ideals that have gone into its planning.” And grow they did. First, however, contractors dug miles of trench to divert natural run-off, and for sewage, gas, steam, electricity, and phone lines. Las Trampas creek, home to salmon and trout, was dammed to create Lake La Salle--a water supply for the College. Fifteen mission-style buildings followed, transforming a natural marsh into what Brother Z. Joseph characterized as “a veritable thing of beauty.”

In 1941, as the war siphoned off its student body, the College offered its facilities to the Navy for a pre-flight training school. To accommodate its recruits, the Navy constructed barracks, a field house, swimming pool, mess hall, rifle range, infirmary, and boxing pavilion, expanded gas, electrical, and sewage capacity, and ran a two-mile water main that connected the campus to the East Bay Municipal Water District’s plant in Lafayette. The Navy departed after the war, but a new influx of students--fueled by the GI Bill and postwar baby boom--necessitated additional expansion. Between 1959 and 1970 the College built several dormitories, a dining facility, faculty offices, a library, theater, and psychology lab, student union, science building, and parking lots. Even more construction, accommodating the “echo-boomers,” occurred between 1970 and 2003. Attractive but thirsty landscaping filled adjoining areas, eliminating natural habitat of native flora and fauna and increasing the institution’s consumption of water. Dependence on fossil fuels, another finite resource, also increased.

Lake La Salle, 1943, Credit: Courtesy of SMC Library Archives

As the College expanded, Lake La Salle became a flourishing habitat and refuge for wildlife and native fauna. Initially created to provide irrigation water for landscaping, the lake gradually filled with silt. Several attempts, made between 1941 and 1961, to remove sediment failed and the lake reverted to riparian woodland. Today, among a canopy of native red willows (and some introduced weeping willows), migratory waterfowl, warblers, vireos, owls, hawks, golden eagles, deer, fox, bobcat, coyote, and mountain lions find food and shelter, and students study stream ecology and geology, water chemistry, and plant and animal communities. Environmental Science/Studies faculty currently use the area as a living laboratory. Elsewhere on campus, efforts to enhance sustainability are well underway. They include a sustainability website, a carpool/rideshare program, energy conservation measures, recycling and food waste composting programs, an organic garden, a native plant garden, academic majors in environmental studies and sciences, and on-going student projects that investigate campus resource consumption and propose environmentally friendly alternatives. For example, Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo’s California history class is currently developing a sustainability plan for the College.    

As Saint Mary’s expanded, Moraga grew as well. Following Irvine’s death in 1947, his heirs sold the land to the Utah Construction and Mining Company, which in turn developed the property and sold parcels to other builders. Joining a Bay Area-wide trend of postwar white and capital flight out of inner-cities and into suburbs, developers began the process of converting orchards and fields into an affluent community distinguished by neat, uniform ranch-style homes, good schools, well-groomed parks, a golf course, country club, and a tastefully-designed shopping center. To its credit, the Town of Moraga (incorporated in 1974) has attempted to achieve a balance between development and preservation of open space through citizen involvement in town planning and insistence on controlled growth. Indeed, its decision to incorporate was partly a response to unchecked, unplanned suburban expansion initiated by developers during earlier decades. Perhaps one day Saint Mary’s sustainability initiative will extend to its nearest neighbor, and town and gown can move together toward a future grounded in the Saclan wise-use ethic and contemporary knowledge of ecological systems and appropriate technologies.

Sources

Hilson, Robert. “Restoration of Lake La Salle: An Environmental Analysis.” Senior Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1984.

Kimball, Sandy, Moraga’s Pride. Moraga, CA: Moraga Historical Society, 1987.

McDevitt, Brother Matthew. The History of St. Mary’s College, 1863-1963. Typewritten Manuscript, 1963, Saint Mary’s College Library Archives.

Posted on April 24, 2019

Written by Professor Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo Ph.D., Professor of Ethnic Studies, History, and Women's & Gender Studies

HOW DO INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES BECOME MOTIVATED TO CONTRIBUTE TO A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY?

Steve Woolpert

Professor of Politics

This is new work. No political system on the planet has already developed the values or the political systems required to achieve sustainability on a whole-of-society basis.

The clock is running. Although we do not know how much time we have, we know we had better get focused and get at this new work with a degree of commitment that we have not yet seen. Until it is clear that our situation is hopeless, we must shape up and show up every way we can.

Conviction and aspiration are central to generating political motivation. While the fear of environmental catastrophe may motivate some to act, historically, faith in a higher purpose has repeatedly acted as a political force on entire populations in ways that little else has.

Lasting, sustainable progress will require a transformation in our customary ways of political thinking. We cannot solve our environmental problems using the same ways of thinking that created them in the first place. Creativity and imagination are our friends. For example, legal rights have historically not been held by non-human organisms or natural entities, such as bodies of water. In the fall, 2019, semester, the arguments for and against extending legal rights to non-human natural entities will be explored in Environmental Law (POL 136).

 History shows that young people are often at the center of transformative movements. How and in what spaces can participation by your generation be fostered so that you seize the moment in front of you?

Posted April 24, 2019

Written by Steve Woolpert Ph.D., Professor in the Politics Department

Journalist Todd Miller never planned to write about climate change. Researching his own family history was what led him to the island of Marinduque in the Philippines. That was where he met a fisherman, Edmund Oracion.

     “The shore used to be there,” said Oracion, pointing to a buoy rocking in the waves off the coast. “The water is getting close to us. It’s a big concern.” Behind him, the long fishing boats of the Marinduque fleet sat idle on the beach. Typhoon Ineng had just swept down on the archipelago, roiling the waves, and killing fourteen people. The Filipino fisherman told the American journalist that he and all the other people living along the coast might have to relocate farther inland, to take up a new way of life.

     In 2015, Miller was covering a story about immigration, policing, and border security, when he found himself sitting by the railroad tracks on a hot night in a broken-down, weed-choked train yard in Mexico. Hundreds of Central American migrants were sitting there, too, waiting in the dust and weeds, waiting to hop a freight train north to the United States.

     Miller struck up a conversation with one of the migrants, whose name was Ismael. Ismael was seventeen years old. For several days, he had been living next to the tracks in a small shack with two other men. Back in Honduras, Ismael had been a subsistence farmer, and when Miller asked him why he had left home, why he had undertaken this difficult journey over thousands of miles, Ismael answered simply, “No hubo lluvia.” There was no rain.

    That April, at a national security conference in Washington, D.C., a square-jawed, broad-shouldered military officer took the podium. In a gruff, confident voice, he introduced himself as a Marine Corps Brigadier General, and barked, “No surprise to anyone here: extreme weather presents a direct threat to U.S. homeland security. Around the world this has a tremendous effect on our forces and our allies. And definitely our enemies.” Miller paid close attention as the general went on to describe how unprecedented drought helped fuel the conflict in Syria. He listened intently as the general drew a connection between water scarcity, and the rise of the African terrorist group, Boko Haram; and as he painted a grim picture of life in the “South Asian killing fields,” the 2,000-mile-long “iron wall” between India and Bangladesh, where Indian border forces “shoot to kill.”

     The connections were becoming impossible to ignore. In 2017, Miller published Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration, and Homeland Security, in which he “set out to chronicle the way a massive system of social and economic exclusion militarizes divisions not only between the rich and the poor, but between the environmentally secure and the environmentally exposed.” In stark terms, Miller lays bare the violence and futility of the fortress mentality; he exposes the poverty of the migrant experience, as well as the poverty of any concept of national isolation.

     He takes us to the U.S.-Mexico border, and shows us two walls. One is the U.S.-Mexico border barrier itself: a strip of shabby metal, crenellated with security cameras, patrolled by SUVs and drones. The other is a series of gabions, wire cages packed with rocks, strategically placed to slow the flow of water across the land. Before the gabions were built, rushing water from monsoon storms would sweep away topsoil, leaving behind cracked, eroded ground. By shoring up the existing contours of the land, the gabions breathe new life into ancient streams, and now there is water year-round.

     Monuments to a cross-border effort, the gabions are the work of Cuenca Los Ojos, an organization which brings together Mexican and American scientists to restore the biodiversity of the borderlands. It is just one among a growing family of genuine grassroots movements for justice and sustainability that Miller sees cropping up everywhere.

     From Ethiopia to China, in almost every country on earth, this coupling of social and environmental objectives has given birth to a fresh and compelling vision for the future, a new way of thinking about and participating in politics. It is a matter of making the “environmentally exposed” secure. It is necessary, and it is not impossible. We can “offer hospitality and assistance to people who find themselves in dire circumstances, no matter who they are. In the era intensifying climate change, such cross-border mutual assistance will be more important than ever before.”

     For anyone who is concerned about the future of life on earth, for anyone who wonders whether or not it is actually possible for human beings to think of one another as anything like equals, at least enough to redevelop a sense of confidence in the sustainability of the living conditions on which we all depend for our existence, this is the heart of the matter.

                    SOURCE: Miller, Todd. Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration, and Homeland Security. City Lights, 2017.

Posted April 24, 2019

Written by Lain Hart, former Professor of English Composition, MFA Alumnus '12

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly recommended three courses of action to mitigate climate change. These are renewable energy, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Renewable energy gets the most attention of these, but the other two are needed as well. This post will focus on carbon capture and storage.

Why CCS?

One might reasonably ask why we need CCS if we have renewable energy. One short answer is air travel. The only technologies available for air travel are fossil fuels and biofuels whose environmental impact is often greater than comparable volumes of fossil fuels. Air travel uses large amounts of fuel, so if you fly very much it will account for most of your personal carbon footprint. Looking at Saint Mary’s College, air travel is involved in our sports programs and foreign studies, both of which are an important part of the college. Will we give them up in order to be more sustainable, or will we offset them with CCS? Many will favor the latter. In many ways the college is a microcosm of the world in that air travel is very important to business and political leaders who will see their roles as essential.

Forms of CCS

Some industrial processes produce nearly pure streams of carbon dioxide. A fixed source that produces a stream of mostly carbon dioxide is a good candidate for geological sequestration. That involves compressing the carbon dioxide and injecting it into the pore space in deep rock formations. Depleted oil and gas fields are ideal for this purpose because they contain a large volume of pore space, they are not in communication with the surface, and they have wells and other infrastructure already in place. There is a large capital cost associated with converting an oil field to carbon dioxide injection, which is that all of the steel tubing has to be replaced with special corrosion-resistant tubing. Carbon dioxide is highly corrosive of steel at high pressures and in the presence of naturally-occurring moisture.

There is also an economic benefit associated with converting an oil field to carbon dioxide injection; more oil can be produced because liquid carbon dioxide is an excellent solvent. For that reason, injection in oil fields is the largest industrial use of carbon dioxide today, which is to say that carbon dioxide has positive value for that purpose. That is very desirable for sequestration, but not all oil fields are suitable, and normal carbon dioxide injection operations differ from what is ideal for sequestration.

Carbon dioxide injection works best in fields that produce very light oil. This is a problem in California where our oil production is medium and heavy grades and there are few if any good candidates for carbon dioxide injection. Production of very light oil in the United States is dominated by the Permian Basin of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, which is also the world capitol of oil field carbon dioxide injection.

An oil field operator’s financial incentive is to produce as much oil as possible, while using as little carbon dioxide as possible. This results in a style of operation that is not ideal for carbon sequestration. Operators inject alternating slugs of carbon dioxide and water for two reasons; water is denser than liquid carbon dioxide so the static pressure in the well is greater, and less carbon dioxide must be processed to extract the oil. The carbon dioxide is injected and then produced, the oil is extracted from it, and the carbon dioxide is sold onward to another operator. For sequestration, one would want to cycle the carbon dioxide through the reservoir until it was too lean to extract the oil, and then leave it there. Leaving the carbon dioxide in place could be incentivized with a carbon tax and currently benefits from a tax credit.

Flue gas is around 10% carbon dioxide. The energy penalty of compressing ten times as much gas renders untreated flue gas unsuitable for geo-sequestration. Carbon dioxide can be extracted with an amine plant, but that adds both capital cost and an energy penalty, and we still need to dispose of the concentrated carbon dioxide, presumably by geo-sequestration. Alternatively one can do what is done with all flue gas today, which is to empty it into the air. This is also what happens with mobile sources, such as aircraft and automobiles.

The most difficult challenge is to extract carbon dioxide from air, of which it makes up only 0.04%. There are experimental approaches that extract carbon dioxide chemically from air, but there are also trees. Reforestation is the cheapest form of carbon sequestration.

Conclusions

Geo-sequestration of nearly pure carbon dioxide from fixed sources is economical at moderate carbon prices. This is only a small proportion of carbon emissions.

Flue gas from fixed sources is something of a problem, so it is desirable to substitute lower-carbon energy sources for fixed facilities such as electric power plants.

Emissions from mobile sources are difficult or impossible to capture, so they must be offset by extracting carbon dioxide from air. A number of technologies to do this are being developed, but the lowest cost method is reforestation. Reforestation with native species also restores natural habitat, and habitat destruction is a leading cause of extinctions.

Posted April 24, 2019

Written by Adjunct Environmental & Earth Science Professor Gregory Croft

As we complete another trip around the Sun and greet another Earth Day, it is hard not to be sad about the condition of our planet and her prospects for the future.  If we look at the “Big Picture”, our relationship with the planet has been fraught for a long time.   The Greeks used the name Gaia to refer to our planet, seeing her as a living entity that is the Mother of All Life; deserving of all the respect and gratitude that a mother deserves.  As with most living creatures, she was also seen as self-healing and self-balancing.   Though she may face injury, she will recover equilibrium.  Some believe that, because of us, this ability to recover has been threatened.  Many geologists, who don’t measure time in years or decades but in eons (meaning an indefinitely long period of time), have proposed that we name our current epoch “Anthropocene” to express the understanding that humans are the dominant factor effecting the planet.   They debate when this epoch begins.  Some argue that it goes back to the rise agriculture (12,000 – 15,000 years ago) when we started to shape the environment rather than the other way around.   Others say it should start with the birth of the atomic age (1945), when we broke open the very building blocks of our world.    Regardless, our relationship with Mother Earth has become problematic.  

 But, in trying to deal with the environmental problems confronting us today, the “Big Picture” may not be the best approach.  It is too abstract… too academic.  As the Titanic went down, they did not argue about the engineering defects in the ship that lead to their predicament.   They scrambled to save lives…   As we look around us, what is an issue that we can see as having an immediate and tangible effect on our ailing Gaia?   I argue it could be  “Regulatory Capture”.    To understand what is meant by “regulatory”, we need to understand that for most of our country’s history the environment was seen mainly as a commodity, the raw material that fed our continually expanding economy (agriculture in the South, industry in the North, trapping and then mining in the West).   As both Adam Smith (the grandfather of classical free market capitalistic theory) and Karl Marx (capitalism’s greatest critic) both noted, continuous expansion is built into our capitalist system.   Economists define a period of two years or more without economic growth as a “depression”…  just one example of how continuous, infinite economic expansion is seen as “health” for our shared community.     Such growth may be great for the economy, but it is not so great for the environment.   The environmentalist Edward Abbey stated that “Growth for the sake of growth is the sign of a cancer cell”.   

Over the last 100 years there arose the idea that we should “regulate” these capitalistic tendencies.     Early on, such environmental regulation arose after the excesses of production threatened not the environment’s health, but humans.  In response to the Dust Bowl (caused by an abuse of the top soil that led to the displacement of millions of people) FDR created the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933.  In London,   the “Great Smog” (a result of their dependency on coal that caused over 4,000 deaths during a four day period) led to the Parliament passing the Clean Air Act of 1956.   The pinnacle of regulating the excesses of our abusive economic environmental practices in the United States came with the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Founded in 1970 (the same year as the first Earth Day in San Francisco), the EPA was formed to “protect human health and the environment” (for the full mission statement see:   https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do).   It consolidated a number of pre-existing regulatory agencies and added more programs passed by congress that gave oversight to projects and practices that were seen as potentially detrimental to the environment (e.g.  The National Environmental Protection Act [1970],  The Clean Air Act [1970], The Clean Water Act [1972]).  The EPA marked a major change in how a democratically elected government defined “The Environment”.   There was a shift away from seeing the environment as merely a resource that should be exploited, to its own detriment, for private profit -- what Garret Hardin termed “The Tragedy of the Commons”.   The EPA was a federal agency that was put in place to protect and “regulate” our Commons (shared resources, the environment) for the betterment of all. 

But what does this history lesson have to do with now, Earth Day 2019?   In the study of law they make the distinction between “law on the books” and “law in action”.   We can pass the most humane, just and eco-friendly laws, but they mean nothing unless they are enforced.   This brings us to the “Capture” in “Regulatory Capture”.   Like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, regulatory capture is when a regulatory agency is taken over by the same industries that they are meant to regulate.   In regard to the EPA, its effectiveness in protecting the environment depends on the administrator who’s put in charge.  For example, Obama appointed Gina McCarthy to be his EPA Administer.   Ms. McCarthy was a lifelong environmentalist and became the face of Obama's global warming and climate change initiatives.  She finalized the Clean Power Plan under the Clean Air Act and represented the U.S.  at the landmark Paris Climate Agreement.    Compare this with Scott Pruitt, who Donald Trump appointed to replace Ms. McCarthy.   As Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, a state with a dominating oil industry, Pruitt was an avid supporter of fossil fuels (and a climate change denier), having sued Obama’s EPA over fourteen times to overturn regulations that hurt the oil industries bottom line.  A study published last year in  The American Journal of Public Health (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304360) states that, under Pruitt, the EPA had moved so far from its original mission of “protecting human health and the environment” that it has almost become a branch of the oil industry.  The study cited political appointments to EPA that were drawn almost exclusively from industry or states with a large oil industry.    It went on to state: "As one veteran from the Reagan years (an administration that a majority of environmentalists saw as inherently antagonistic to their concerns—parenthetical comment added) reflected, by the time Pruitt and the new political leadership are done with the agency, it will have become 'a much smaller and probably much more passive operation than what you've got now'—an agency, in other words, more easily circumvented or even captured by those it should regulate."   Pruitt was finally forced to resign last year.   He was not pushed out because his actions were violating the foundational mission of the EPA, but because of corruption and misuse of funds.

So why bring up regulatory capture on Earth Day?   Because whoever is President gets to appoint the Administer of the EPA… the “Sheriff of the Environment”.     In my Social Problems class I often ask:  “With so many social problems out there that are going fall on your heads, why is it that you folks are the least likely to vote?”  The most common response I will get is “They don’t think their vote will make a difference”.   In sociology this is what Robert Merton called a self-fulfilling prophecy.   The votes that are never made are the ones that will never make a difference.  So, as we contemplate and appreciate Gaia on her Earth Day, the least you can do is make sure you vote. We need a new Sheriff in town!     

(But the Big Picture is still important.  Visit your Mother… go take a hike!)

Posted on April 24, 2019

Written by Sociology Professor John Ely Ph.D., 

Over the past 6 years Executive MBA students have actively collected coral bleaching data around the world for submission to the Global Coral Health Data Base. The program is part of the citizen science efforts of the University of New South Wales’ CoralWatch organization (https://coralwatch.org).

CoralWatch is a not-for-profit citizen science program based at The University of Queensland working with volunteers worldwide to increase understanding of coral reefs, coral bleaching and climate change.

CoralWatch developed the Coral Health Chart in 2002. The chart standardizes changes in coral colors, and provides a simple way for people to quantify coral health and contribute to the CoralWatch global database. The Coral Health Chart is used by dive centers, schools, conservation groups, tourists, and scientists.

The students first learn how to identify the type of coral and then record the associated color of the coral using the chart.

Our students have collected coral health data from Zanzibar, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Kingdom of Tonga and Australia during our academic travel courses. But they have also gone on to collect data while on vacation with their own families and friends in the Caribbean, Hawaii and Belize.

CoralWatch also conducts regular workshops for communities, teachers and students, and has developed a range of high quality educational materials such as books, dvd, and curriculum linked lesson plans. Many of these are freely available. I recently had the opportunity to complete certification with them at a workshop held on the southern tip of the Great Barrier Reef on a very small nature reserve…Lady Elliot Island. We had many field exercises where we honed our teaching skills in developing our own citizen scientists back at our respective universities.

The opportunity to teach sustainability in a flipped classroom format is an enriching experience for both student and professor alike. This type of hands-on experience provides a much more meaningful understanding of sustainability than any lecture or case study can ever possibly provide.

You don’t even have to travel to some exotic reef location! CoralWatch had developed the virtual reef exercise to allow all students to experience reef exploration and identification.

As I write this blog we are getting ready for some more work in June in the Andaman Sea in Thailand… should be another excellent learning experience!

Posted April 24, 2019

Written by Dr. Linda Herkenhoff, Academic Chair of Sustainability Committee, Academic Director of Global MBA Program, Professor of Analytics & Organizational Behavior

Saint Mary’s Fair Trade Campaign extends far beyond the reach of our small scale campus; we are in fact apart of a greater movement. Five years ago, Saint Mary’s College became nationally recognized as a Fair Trade certified campus under the advisory and leadership of Sister Jodi Min of Mission and Ministry supported by a team of passionate students. Although I did not have the privilege of meeting Sister Jodi myself, I am deeply inspired by the legacy she has left. As I near the end of my first year in the role of Lasallian Program Coordinator for Fair Trade Education, I am excited to revisit our campus programming and create more accessible opportunities for learning. Attending Fair Trade Campaigns National Conference in Chicago, Illinois, allowed me to take a glimpse into Fair Trade initiatives taking place across the country while also reflecting on the impact of our own.

    Fair Trade Campaigns sponsored its second annual National Conference in March 2019, welcoming Fair Trade advocates, companies, and producers to gather together in celebration of Fair Trade’s growth in numbers and visibility. One of my greatest takeaways from the three-day event was the reminder that the power not only lies in our hands, but rather in our pockets. Living in an economy that has become increasingly reliant on the outsourcing of labor and its production, we must be conscious of the cost of our consumerism. In this complex global supply chain, every purchase we make matters. Hearing first-hand from Fair Trade USA’s founder and CEO Paul Rice, (pictured above) who began his journey with Fair Trade working alongside coffee farmers in Nicaragua, I recognized the potential we possess to change the systems we participate in from within. Although we may not have the affordance of meeting those who make our products, we can make a difference by choosing to support Fair Trade companies. This translates into furthering community development and minimizing our impact on the environment.

    Reflecting on how I envision myself being an instrument of change, I am in the process of brainstorming my very own January Term course on the subject of Fair Trade and its locality in the San Francisco Bay Area. This is a long-term project of mine, anticipated for January Term 2021, and it is being proposed under the direction of Professor Caroline Doran from the School of Business and Economics. My hope in implementing this course is to showcase the value that Fair Trade has, not only for our own economy but for the life and dignity of workers globally. Fair Trade is not just a business model; it is also a pathway to achieving a living wage for workers and a means to promote the continuation of sustainable practices.

As I reminisce on my time in Chicago, I am incredibly grateful for the generosity of the Mission and Ministry Center and the Cummins Institute for making my attendance at this conference possible. I am excited for the future of Fair Trade at Saint Mary’s and look forward to revamping our programming for the upcoming year. Stay tuned. There is more to come!

Posted April 24, 2019

Written by Melissa Goan, Class of 2021 Student of Sociology and Women's & Gender Studies with a minor in Law & Society, Lasallian Program Coordinator for Free Trade Education

We say, “your purchase is your vote”, do we really know what we are voting for? When we purchase clothing from Walmart, are we aware indirectly we had a hand in over 1,000 deaths in Bangladesh in 2013? When we purchase a Nestle or Hershey's chocolate bar, are we willing to bargain with the possibility that we could be consuming the cocoa that was harvested by children across West Africa? Should we dare to look into the cultivation of palm oil in Malaysia as it has created massive deforestation and neglect in regard to indigenous rights, resulting in climate change? When we drink our morning cup of coffee to start the day how can we be assured our pleasure isn’t at the expense of a harvester in Guatemala? Unfortunately, these issues are either widely unknown or ignored because of the corporations in power affiliate themselves strongly with authorities and have the upper hand financially.

Nestle has had multiple class action cases filed against them for slavery in West Africa yet they have been dismissed. In 2013 Nestle allowed for Fair Labor Association analyze 35% of their cocoa supply farmers. In this report, alongside this and other bi-yearly reports, Nestle has decreased their number of child laborers and fully recognize this to be an issue as they were pressured by the public. They now address the topic on their website as to how they plan to tackle the issue by tracking data from their sharecroppers. They are trying to fight child labor with remediation, seeking to promote education over work. This is still not 100% successful as Nestle still struggles with consumer claims that this remains an issue of human rights and transparency. Many issues such as these are still in practice with no resolve. How did all of this chaos begin and how is it maintained?

These abuses are most commonly seen in practices internationally where the only intersection between supplier and consumer is the product itself. The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is mutual settlement between two countries to cut back on tariffs or trade quotas and to simultaneously boost international trade. In many cases NAFTA or FTA has had devastating impacts on communities and environments across the world. While it lowers the cost of the product for the consumer, the impacts of the FTA are often the source of the exploitation and degradation of local business, farmers and workers. The FTA has also led to an increase of deforestation and growing concerns for pollution. This can be observed in low income countries already suffering from a variety of injustices, to then add mass pollution creates a whole host of other problems related to food/water contamination, disease, extraction of natural resources, decrease in life expectancy, etc. These are maintained by us, the consumer. The beauty of all of this is that most of the time the consumer is uneducated on these businesses practices as most Americans aren’t concerned or aware to the issues behind the product because this is an conflict that extends beyond borders. Consumption is a part of American culture and we simply we aren’t taught the other end of the global supply chain. We are to blame for our own ignorance, for putting trust in companies that lack transparency. How can we not only work to educate but resolve these issues?

Fair Trade. It is on the opposing side of the spectrum to Free Trade. Fair Trade is a global movement made up of a diverse network of producers, companies, shoppers, advocates, and organizations putting people and planet first. Working to connect disadvantaged farmers and workers with consumers, promote fairer trading conditions and empower farmers and workers to combat poverty. This connection creates stability for the workers allowing them to build their communities putting jobs back into the community so they can make sustainable conditions and environments. Through these efforts, companies can also invest in these communities creating more spaces for healthy resources, reforestation and access to education. Numi Tea is one of the many Fair Trade companies working toward supporting their community in multiple ways. They beg the question, what is tea without water? Through their H2OPE they are building more accessible wells for their producers in both India and Madagascar serving over 10,000 people. Fair Trade has the ability to benefit both the consumer and the producer creating an alternative space for trade.

However, how many of us are actually given the very power of voting with our dollar when we are struggling financially? This the space in which fast fashion and food thrive because inexpensive mass production caters to those of low socioeconomic status as it is the most economically sensible option. This option often puts the consumer in a gridlock in which they have few alternatives within reason. Fair Trade typically costs a few extra cents however that is not always an easy alternative. In order to make Fair Trade choices there needs to be a push to prioritize it, demonstrated both in one’s purchase and/or vocally. The responsibility of Fair Trade needs to be primarily emphasized by those who have the purchasing power to make a choice. Education on Fair Trade practices versus its counterpart must be highlighted in order for people to understand the impact of supply chains and want to shift their dollar from one product to the other. As a consumer, educate yourself then others. Look into where your purchases come from and the alternatives; challenge yourself in order to create a ripple effect for the benefit another.

Look on food products for the Fair Trade Certified symbol pictured below and go to https://www.fairtradecertified.org/ for more information/ recourses to guide your purchases. 

Posted on April 24, 2019

Written by Noelle Phillips, Class of 2021 Student, Lasallian Program Coordinator for Fair Trade Education in the Mission & Ministry Center

The BPA Lowdown:  BPA use in plastics, influence on embryo development, and deciphering recycle codes

We are surrounded by a plethora of manmade compounds that can have various effects on human health.  There are tremendous biological and environmental impacts of the production of billions of metric tons of plastics per year, with only 9% of plastic products reportedly being recycled as of 2018.  Many of these plastics wind up in our landfills and oceans, and turn into microplastics and leach their compounds into our water and soil systems. Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of these prevalent compounds, which has been mass produced since the 1960s.  BPA is a plasticizer used in plastics, resins, and various consumer products including food containers, water bottles, toys, receipt paper, and medical, dental and sports equipment, etc..  It is a xenoestrogen and endocrine-disrupter, meaning it alters hormonal pathways in the body, and affects numerous biological processes across species.

Much past scientific work and subsequent public activism have reduced the use of BPA in certain consumer products in recent years.  Research has demonstrated the tremendous negative reproductive and developmental effects of BPA, scientists spoke out about it, and the public and policy makers listened, and moved into action.  That’s what resulted in the banning of BPA from baby bottles in the U.S., and from several other products in other countries. Notably, the U.S. is still lagging behind several other countries including Canada and Japan, in banning BPA from many plastic products.  However, this story is actually a beautiful example of science reaching the public and starting to make a positive difference in our lives. At this point in the BPA story, however, in a brilliant marketing strategy, many companies are now using BPA replacement compounds that have had little to no research and testing.  Yet these compounds are being marketed as safe “BPA alternatives.” These next-generation BPA alternatives can be used in products labeled “BPA-free.”

Research in the Schuh Lab involving many SMC undergrads (several pictured below), has focused on the effects of BPA, several BPA alternatives, and other potentially toxic chemicals on embryo development.  We have used the model species Xenopus laevis (African clawed frog) for most of these studies, which makes toxicology assays easier, as the frog embryo (shown to right) has been well-characterized, can be easily and cost-effectively studied in the lab, and avoids the ethical and biological barriers of studying human development.  In parallel studies, in collaboration with Dr. Mark Lingwood of the Chemistry department, we have also begun to examine the presence of several BPA analogs in “BPA-free” plastic products. Dr. Lingwood’s students of his advanced Instrumental Analysis class have been conducting these preliminary studies using mass spectrometry, which will be continued this summer.   

Our results show that BPA and several BPA analogs including BPAF cause severely disrupted cell division early in development in vitro (in the dish), correlating with the time preceding human embryo implantation in vivo (in a woman’s body).  Notably, very low doses of the plasticizers, comparable to levels reported in the environment and in human fluids, result in severe embryo defects, including slowed, irregular cell division and reduced numbers of cells per embryo (see figure above).    
In surviving embryos, the gross defects include scoliosis-like flexures and disruptions to the spinal cord, and malformed head, face, and gut (see figure below).  There is also severe mortality or high death rates with increasing exposure time and doses of the chemicals. Specifically of interest, BPAF was 1,000-times more toxic and potent than BPA itself.  Shockingly, the harmful effects of the marketed safer BPA alternatives were greater than that of BPA, and had dramatic effects on early cell division and embryo development.  The calculated lethal concentration and sublethal potency of BPAF are environmentally relevant.  These findings underscore the toxicity of several prevalent manmade compounds and the negative effects they may have on human development and disease, and highlight the need for better molecular and toxicological characterization of all BPA and phthalate analogs.  These results have recently been published (Arancio, Schuh, et al. Reprod Tox, in press) and have been shared in talks by Dr. Schuh, and students Emry Cohenour (Biochem ’19) and Anyssa Dominguez (Bio ’19) at various scientific conferences around the country including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington D.C..

Interestingly, there are now several reports of reduced pregnancy rates, increased miscarriage rates, and various diseases and cancers linked with BPA and BPA analog levels in the blood of humans.  Several studies have reported BPA levels in the blood plasma and urine of a shocking 93% of humans tested. Thus, it is clear, human, animal, and plant exposure to BPA compounds is ubiquitous.

One of the goals of our work is to help educate the public about the negative effects of some of these mass-produced, widespread compounds on human health, development and disease.  It’s also our hope to make more people aware of the prevalence of some of these compounds and the lack of regulation that goes into their production and use. Surprisingly, as plastics are not consumed, they lack the stringent regulation and labeling that occurs with food and drugs.  Therefore, our aims are to increase awareness, and ultimately help develop better regulations and safer alternatives and practices, that begin with the individual! (see below)

Wondering what you can do?  

You can do something for both your own health and the health of the earth.  Most people know the little triangle symbol at the bottom of plastic bottles or products means 'recycle,' but what they don't know is the meaning of the different codes regarding the components and safety of different plastics.  The numbers indicate the grade of plastic and can also tell you about their safety and uses. Plastics are seeping into our soil and water systems, including our tap water, and obviously there are some plastic products that contain chemicals that can be quite toxic, especially with increased exposure or with heating and re-heating.  By learning these codes you can not only improve your own health and safety, but can also improve that of the earth’s, with proper recycling, and the use of alternative safer products. As a general rule of thumb, recycling codes 2, 4, and 5 are the safest, and least likely to contain BPA and other toxic compounds. Think, “2, 4, 5 – to help you stay alive.”  Although dramatic, it’s a good way to remember.  Below, we go through the components and products of the different recycle codes and the ones to steer clear of.

Deciphering recycle codes…

The following chart is a quick summary of the plastics labels and their “threat” level.

The following sections provide information on each type of plastic.

Polyethylene Terephthalate

Plastic #1 - PET or PETE stands for polyethylene terephthalate, a plastic resin and a form of polyester.  Where is PETE found?  PETE is commonly used to package: cosmetics, household cleaners, water, juice, soft drinks, salad dressings, oil, and peanut butter, etc..

Health Concerns 
Studies have found levels of antimony (a toxic chemical) leaching from water bottles that have been placed in heat for prolonged periods.  Although PETE does not contain BPA or Phthalates, it’s best to make sure that your water bottles are not temperature-abused.  PETE plastic should not be reused because cleaning detergents and high temperatures can cause chemicals to leach out of the plastic.  Plastic #1 is only intended for one time use.

High-Density Polyethylene

Plastic #2 - High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is a polyethylene thermoplastic made from petroleum.  HDPE is hard, opaque and can withstand somewhat high temperatures.  Where is HDPE found?  HDPE is used in the manufacturing of toys, and the packaging of: laundry detergent, milk jugs, folding chairs & tables, etc.

Health Concerns 
No known health concerns.

Polyvinyl Chloride

Plastic #3 - Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a thermoplastic polymer.  Through the use of phthalates, another type of plasticizer, it can be made softer and more flexible.  We, and others, have found very negative effects of phthalates on embryo development and health. Where is PVC found?  It is present in: shower curtains, cling wrap for food, waterbeds, pool toys, inflatable structures, clothing, vinyl IV bags used in neo-natal intensive care.  PVC can also be found in car interiors and vinyl flooring, resulting in the release of toxic chemicals into the air.

Health Concerns 
PVC is one of the toxic plastics that should be avoided.                                                                               What can you do?

• Purchase a shower curtain made from organic hemp, bamboo or PEVA. PEVA (polyethylene vinyl acetate) is a non-vinyl (PVC-free), chlorine-free, biodegradable plastic.

• Air out the car before getting in.

• Avoid using cling wrap made with PVC.

• Avoid inflatable structures, air mattresses, and toys made with PVC.  Note: Aerobed pakmat and Aerobed Ecolite are PVC- and phthalate-free.

• Choose all baby toys, pool toys, and bath toys that are labeled to be PVC-, Phthalate- and BPA-free.

Low-density polyethylene

Plastic #4 - Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is a thermoplastic made from petroleum.  It can be found translucent or opaque. It is flexible and tough but breakable.  Where is LDPE found?  It is in: juice and milk cartons (as the water-proof inner and outer layer), most plastic grocery bags, and some packaging material.

Health Concerns 
No known health concerns.

Polypropylene

Plastic #5 - Polypropylene (PP) is a thermoplastic polymer.  It is strong, tough, has a high resistance to heat, and acts as a barrier to moisture.  Where is Polypropylene found?  It is in: yogurt and margarine tubs, plastic cups and baby bottles, kitchenware, microwavable plastic containers, and lids.

Health Concerns 
Most PP are microwavable safe and dishwasher safe.  NOTE: microwavable/dishwasher safe only means that the plastic will not warp when heated.  It does not imply that it’s a healthy practice.  A better alternative is using glass containers to heat foods and hand-washing plastic instead of using the dishwasher!

Polystyrene

Plastic #6 - Polystyrene (PS) is a petroleum-based plastic.  It can either be hard or used in the form of styrofoam.  Where is Polystyrene found?  Polystyrene is widely used in packaging materials and insulation.  Some common items include: disposable cutlery, CD and DVD cases, egg cartons, foam cups, and to-go foam containers from restaurants.

Health Concerns 
According to the Foundation for Achievements in Science and Education fact sheet, long term exposure to small quantities of styrene can cause neurotoxic (fatigue, nervousness, difficulty sleeping), hematological (low platelet and hemoglobin values), cytogenetic (chromosomal and lymphatic abnormalities), and carcinogenic effects. Styrene is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the EPA and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 

Ways to avoid Polystyrene:

• Package left-over foods from a restaurant in your own glass or stainless steel containers

• Avoid styrofoam cups or plates and instead use stainless steel, glass, or bamboo products

• Bring your own silverware to fast-food restaurants instead of using their plastic ones

OTHER (Varies)

Plastic #7 can be tricky as it stands for “Other,” which may or may not contain BPA or BPA alternatives.  It’s commonly used to label Polycarbonate (PC).  The letters PC may be present with the recycling symbol, which would indicate that the product is made with polycarbonate.  Polycarbonate is derived from BPA, and as discussed in this article there are many negative health effects of exposure to BPA and BPA alternatives.  Where is Polycarbonate found?  It is in: electrical wiring, CD/DVD cases, baby bottles, and 3 and 5 gallon reusable bottles, among other products.

Health Concerns 
BPA has been found to be an endocrine-disruptor with many negative health effects.  Choose bottles and products made with the #2, #4, or #5 recycling codes.

Safest Choices & Summary

Plastic products marked with the numbers 2, 4 and 5 are the safer choices.  Regardless of what plastic you use, avoid exposing your plastics to high temperatures (microwave, dishwasher, etc.) and use mild detergents for cleaning.  Since there is no guarantee that plastics will not leach out harmful chemicals, and there’s no guarantee that a product labeled BPA-free is free of BPA alternative compounds, we suggest playing it safe by trying to avoid plastics altogether or whenever possible!  Get out that stainless steel water bottle.

HAPPY EARTH DAY!  It begins with you.

References:

1) Arancio AL,* Cole, KD,* Dominquez A,* Cohenour E, * Kadie J,* Maloney WC,* Cilliers C,* and Schuh SM.  (2018)  Bisphenol A, Bisphenol AF, Di-n-butyl phthalate, and 17β-estradiol have shared and unique dose-dependent effects on early embryo cleavage divisions and development in Xenopus laevis.  Reproductive Toxicology. 84: 65–74. (*SMC students)

Link to article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623818302399?via%3Dihub

2) Arancio AL,* Cole, KD,* Dominquez A,* Cohenour E, * Kadie J,* Maloney WC,* Cilliers C,* and Schuh SM.  (2019).  Distinct developmental defects induced by bisphenol A (BPA), bisphenol AF (BPAF), and 17β-estradiol in Xenopus laevis embryos.  Data in Brief, in press. (*SMC students)

3) Dr. Schuh’s webpage:  https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/node/143956

4) Good plastic website:

http://www.babygreenthumb.com/p-122-safe-plastic-numbers-guide.aspx

Faculty & Student Highlights who were part of this work:

Dr. Sonya Schuh, of Department of Biology, Saint Mary’s College of California

Ashley Arancio, Allied Health Science, ‘16

Emry Cohenour, Biochem, ‘19

Kyla Cole (middle), Allied Health Science, ‘18

Chane Cilliers (right), Bio, ‘18

Anyssa Dominguez, Bio, ‘19

Posted April 24, 2019

Written by Dr. Sonya Schuh, Associate Professor of Biology