University professors and students on the national champion Forensics Debate and Speech team heatedly discussed environmental sustainability funding for the next 10 years Tuesday evening in the Gerlinger Lounge.
The debaters took sides on whether the University should prioritize the funding of environmentally sustainable projects from 2010 to 2020. Environmental studies adjunct instructor Jason Schreiner and physics professor Gregory Bothun argued the affirmative side, while debate team members Benjamin Dodds, Hailey Sheldon and Matt Rose took the opposing view.
The audience, which filled about half the available seats, declared the teachers the winners.
To start off the evening, honors college Dean David Frank announced that the debate would be interactive, allowing audience members to move between the left and right sides of the room to show support for the argument they believed was strongest.
Throughout the debate, both sides cited budget concerns to back up their arguments.
Teachers on the affirmative side said that with America’s financial woes, new, environmentally clean buildings should be constructed on campus. This change would not pay off immediately, but it would be beneficial in the long run. Bothun said Deady Hall uses five buildings’ worth of energy, and the new buildings could decrease the campus carbon footprint by around 45 percent.
The student debaters counteracted this argument, pointing to recent state budget cuts in higher education that would not leave enough money for a larger campus sustainability program. The students also said fossil fuels are needed to back up the solar panels on the outside of the Lillis Business Complex, and the non-renewable campus energy source cannot be completely eliminated.
On the environmental education front, Bothun said students need “Energy Literacy 101,” and that “sustainability sustains your future forever.” Bothun said students must be aware of how much energy they use and how they affect the world around them, and funding is necessary to create those educational programs.
Rose told the opposition that money for education is more important than funds for sustainability programs on campus. He also noted that one college campus cannot help the environment. “Nature is one hell of a mistress, and don’t mess with her,” he said emphatically, to a rupture of audience applause.
Rose said it should be the federal government’s job to solve environmental problems.
The debate ended with a large majority of audience members migrating to the affirmative side of the room, giving the professors the win. The pro-environment audience agreed after the debate that the professors had more intellectual arguments that contained facts and numbers, while the debate team stated more emotional reasons.
Audience members who supported the negative side said both sides had strong points, but that right now is not the time to spend money on new campus buildings that are more sustainable.
Even though the affirmative side earned the win, Schreiner stated that in this debate “everyone wins” because it was an engaging intellectual experience.
[email protected]
Students, teachers debate merits of sustainability
Daily Emerald
May 26, 2009
More to Discover