Column by Taylor Shelton
The election of senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden to the offices of the presidency and vice-presidency mean many things for Americans and for the rest of the world. Among those things is the end of the war on science that has been waged by the Bush administration for the past eight years.
From the squelching of EPA documents supporting the scientific consensus of global warming to the billions of dollars pumped into dead-end technologies, the Bush administration (and the Republican party, in general) has challenged any science that doesn’t resemble the Creation Museum with the full force of the executive branch’s power.
That is surely about to change. With a foundation in the importance of renewable energy and sound science to solving the global climate crisis, Obama and Biden will certainly push the United States toward a clean, healthy and economical energy and environmental policy in the coming years.
But while our nation as a whole gets itself in gear for a new energy future, where will the Commonwealth of Kentucky be? Where will UK be? Will we still be passing $300 million subsidies for international coal conglomerates in the hope that they will provide a handful of jobs by bringing their air and water pollution to our backyards? And will we continue to allow Lexington’s worst air quality measurements to be recorded on UK’s North Campus due to the emissions from the South Upper Street coal plant? For the well-being of all of us, I surely hope that this is not the path we continue on.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence pointing to the contrary. Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo made waves over the summer by unequivocally supporting the environmentally destructive practice of mountain-top removal in the hills of his home in eastern Kentucky. If Mongiardo were unlucky enough to live in the hollers below those leveled mountains, like many of his constituents, I’m sure he would have a much different opinion. But it is his opinion, like the opinion of UK President Lee Todd, who touted UK’s research into the not-so-clean ‘clean coal’ technology when asked to give information about UK’s sustainability policy, that makes the policy around here. And that’s what’s unfortunate.
Just like the light at the end of the presidential election’s tunnel, there is hope. UK has created one of the nation’s largest farm-to-table initiatives, which puts beef from Kentucky’s own Green River Cattle Company right onto your plate in campus dining halls.       Likewise, our campus has become one of the nation’s leaders in implementing sustainable transportation plans, improving the bikeability and walkability of the university. Despite the great progress we have made on these fronts, there is still a long way to go.
After nearly two years, UK has still failed to follow through with many of the sustainability initiatives that President Todd committed to in the spring of 2006. But, again, there is some hope. Earlier this semester, Dr. Todd committed to fund sustainability initiatives at the university for the first time in history. The money put forth by Dr. Todd has been used to create the UK Sustainability Lecture Series, which aims to promote a culture of sustainability at UK through enlightened discourse on the issues that are most important to us as students and as Kentuckians.
The inaugural lecture will be delivered on Monday, Nov. 17 at 7 p.m. in the Worsham Theater by Tom FitzGerald, environmental attorney, graduate of the UK College of Law and recent recipient of the Heinz Award in the Environment. While FitzGerald’s lecture is just a small step in the long journey UK will be forced to take toward sustainability, it represents a great stride in the effort to shift the paradigm of the university administration to taking sustainability seriously.
Taylor Shelton is a geography and political science senior. E-mail opinions@kykernel.com.
First, a hint. When you resort to liberal use of the pet term “sustainability” without defining what you mean, many people probably cannot quite tell what the hell you are talking about (even if they understand the general idea). The following is from Wikipedia: “[s]ustainability has become a controversial and complex term that is applied in many different ways: to different levels of biological organization (e.g. wetlands, prairies, forests), human organization (e.g. ecovillages, eco-municipalities, sustainable cities) and human activities and disciplines (e.g. sustainable agriculture, sustainable architecture).”
Another hint: your so called scientific “consensus” as to the existence of a man-made, global climate crisis is meaningless. A note about consensus for you: a falsehood does not become true merely because a consensus of the people believe in it. And, although equally true, here’s something that a person like you, a person who subscribes to the religion of “scientific consensus,” may find hard to believe: a falsehood does not become true merely because the people who believe in it are greater in number and/or “smarter” than the people who don’t.
Another thing you might want to know: your entire world view is based on logical fallacy. You and your ilk dismiss valid criticism with disdain by comparing those who are correctly critical of your views to people who believe in the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or the displays at the Creation Museum. However, you overlook that the so called “science” that you speak of is merely philosophy dressed in a lab coat.
I don’t care to which epidemiological school you subscribe, Homes, correlation is not causation, no matter how much you think it is. Hopefully, one day, it will dawn on you that there is not even one valid scientific experiment backing the theory that you worship.
Science? I have news for you, Homes. An utter philosophical theory does not become “science” merely because a lot of scientists believe in it. Take the theory of evolution for example. As much as evolutionary biologists live for the purpose of camouflaging the truth about their pseudo-scientific notions in the ambiguity of the word “evolution,” I am talking only about abiogenisis. How is that science? Because the people who came up with the various (plausible but all unproven) philosphies to explain abiogenisis are scientists?
I am fully aware of the experiments that have been conducted in the past and the experiments that are capable of being conducted with current technology. Trust me, it is still only philosophy. And, if you and your kind would pull your heads out of the sand, splash some water on your faces, slap yourselves in the face, give each other a shot of adrenaline directly to the heart with a giant needle, wake up from the dogmatic stupor you are in, and actually review some of the arguments that dispute what you believe and that point out the logical fallacies with which your “science” is riddled, then you would know.that to be true.
The fact that your a law school graduate, doesn’t give your argument any extra credence.
Sterling – while it’s obvious that law school taught you to use high flung rhetoric, it’s unfortunate that they failed to teach you that when addressing someone, even someone who you may disagree with, it is important to be respectful and cordial. Otherwise, they may not take your argument so seriously or consider you to be a legitimate source of information worthy of engaging in a meaningful debate with. Nice try, ‘Homes’.
HOMES? It’s “HOLMES!” Shwew, what ignorance.
Also, let’s get rid of science since it’s so useless and since it’s practically impossible to PROVE anything.
Goodbye medicine, we hardly knew you. Goodbye physics, it’s been great. Goodbye giant needle of adrenaline that we so desperately need; it’s a shame you were a product of “philosophy dressed in a lab coat.” Goodbye Wikipedia, you were such a great source for definitions of well-known concepts and words (see: sustainability). Let us cast aside this notion that somehow we can reveal the Truth. Let us embrace nothing except pointless rhetoric aimed at showcasing our talent to be both irrelevant and pretentious. Isn’t it so LIBERATING?
“Epidemiological school?” Are you seriously discussing the control of diseases and other health concerns? That doesn’t seem to make any sense. Are you sure you aren’t talking about epistemology — you know, theory of knowledge? I mean, I know the two words sound a like and there’s plenty of syllables in each one, so it’s probably an honest mistake.
You did a good job trying to channel Michael Crichton’s ghost, but you still failed. Shwew, boy cannot parrot worth a damn.
Wow, I am really sorry, Taylor (and I’m not joking). I saw the “[s]peak your mind” comment above the box and took it way too literally. No, I apologize. I’m really embarrassed because I should have realized that you and others might read my rambling comment.
I do not usually write in these boxes. Plus, I was thinking the column was a couple of days old and for some reason (perhaps I should not have written anything on too little sleep) I failed to think to myself, “Hey, idiot–me–this is going to get posted on the internet and someone might read it!” I definitely should have pushed the little “x” at the top right-hand corner of the window instead of the “Submit Comment” button after I was done flaming.
I enjoyed reading the Kernel op-eds when I was in school and I enjoy checking in usually every few months or so; but, when I checked back tonight while having a snack to see if there were any new op-eds, I remembered that I left a comment, I saw everyone else’s responses and had a humbling I-said-that-out-loud? type of moment. You can probably tell I have too much time on my hands right now (my wife and children are out of town).
Zac, you’re right. I only put that there because I remembered that when I was in school, everyone in the op-eds usually put their college and year. Again, I should have realized, but my comment was the first one and I didn’t even stop to think that my name would post with my comment. You’re all going to be UK grads, and the law school is no better than any other college or program at UK.
Mr. Anderson (I’m hearing in my head the way Agent Smith said that in the Matrix–you probably get that all the time), I deserve the sarcasm after my improper tone. On “Homes,” I think without the “L” is more common. But don’t you think it would have been more interesting if John McCain had used “Homes” instead of “My Friend(s)” all the time. On “epidemiological,” you’re exactly right. I did mean epistemology, but I accidentally thought of the wrong “-ology.” Hey! Wrongology. That’s a good coined phrase to describe what I did in using a similar sounding but incorrect word (does anyone know if there’s already a word that’s used to describe doing that? I mean, other than “mistake.”).
On channeling Michael Crighton, I don’t understand what you mean. I’ve never claimed to be smart, so that comment certainly could have gone over my head. I heard on the news that he died, but I’ve never read any of his books. Regarding that I cannot parrot (is that statement connected to the Michael Crighton sentence?), I also don’t understand what you mean. If you’re saying I am repeating what someone else has said, I thought everything I was saying was original except the direct quote from Wikipedia about sustainability that I put within a set of quotation marks and properly attributed (after I looked up “sustainability”). Oops, I was about to say that I really thought the “philosophy in a lab coat” line was a great line, and then I googled it (because you repeated it before) and found out it was not original. I must have read the phrase years ago and pulled it from my subconscious, thinking it was my original thought (it doesn’t come up as being attributable to Crighton though, if that is the case and if that is what you were talking about before).
Interestingly, one web site which came up when I googled the phrase (just now) mentions something similar to the sentiment I was attempting to express, but the author’s point of view appears to generally be different than mine. Here is the address: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=amonth%3D1%26ayear%3D2008.
Finally, I still stand behind the general ideas I attempted to express, but not the tone. Please also understand, earlier in the week, a guest speaker coming to UK was quoted in the Kernel as saying, essentially, that he would no sooner debate a person who did not believe in man-made global warming than he would a person who believed in the Tooth Fairy or Bigfoot. Then, I went to the op-eds later in the week to see if anyone had commented on the lecture and happened to come across the article by Mr. Shelton. My misdirected flaming was really mostly spouting or venting my frustration about what that person had said earlier. I still don’t like the term “sustainability” though.
Sorry, Andersen, not Anderson.
Oh, one last thing. I’m encouraged that some people actually read the comments on here. Before, I was thinking that most people probably instead read the Kernel in old-fashioned newspaper form, like when I was in school (I know I’m saying that like it was twenty years ago before the internet was invented).
The Kernel always had exceptional readership when I was at UK, which is great. It will be nice to join in the dialogue from time to time on interesting topics (but I’ll watch the tone and keep my comments shorter) and to receive helpful feedback from people with active, university minds like yours.