Students Band Together to Confront Climate Change

Climate change has emerged as one of the biggest issues of our time. Everyone has an opinion on what we should (or shouldn’t) do to combat its effects. Last term, students from three separate classes came together to debate climate change and do their best to come up with a solution, under the direction of Politics Professor Steve Woolpert. The summit’s objective? Figure out how to  reduce carbon emissions to the agreed upon goal of 2 percent by 2100. 

“We wanted to figure out how climate policy plans would impact different segments of the populations, particularly the lower-income population, who are always the first to suffer the consequences.” explained Grace Clinton ’22, a Politics student at Saint Mary’s.

“This event marked the first time that Saint Mary’s students from three different classes—nearly 70 students altogether—collaborated face to face on the same assignment,” said Politics Professor Steve Wolpert. “On the eve of the Glasgow Climate Summit, their engagement was evident—first deliberating thoughtfully in groups of 12 to 14 students, and then enthusiastically applauding the alternative scenarios each group devised for combating the most ominous threat to their future: the climate crisis. Afterward, they reported that was one of the most meaningful learning experiences they have had.” 

With the help of a simulation model developed at M-I-T called EN-ROADS, each group developed their own scenario for fighting climate change. Once every group had come up with their own individual plan, they came together in the Soda Center in hopes of coming up with one big cohesive plan. That was when people’s passions came out

“It was very charged,” Clinton admitted. “But not in a bad way. Everyone was really into it, and there was a lot of energy.” 

Clinton’s group ultimately decided on a plan that involved subsidizing nuclear energy and reducing deforestation, as well as electrification and energy efficiency in transportation. They also planned to reduce methane and other natural gas emissions by 6 percent. The riskiest part of their plan was their decision to tax coal, oil, and natural gas, but only at the minimal level so as not to negatively impact the poorer segments of the population. 

Clinton feels like she walked away from the meeting with a better understanding of the perspectives of her peers. “Because there were different disciplines, everyone came at it from a different angle. I became familiar with aspects that I didn’t know anything about.” 

Her classmate, Jack Manolius, a fellow senior Politics student, agreed. “What struck me the most was the economic viability of our strategies,” Manolius detailed. “You assume that the will to tackle these issues will be at odds with the economic status of our country, but we found that our example was actually sustainable. I was shocked by how much the Politics and Economics students agreed.” 

A Q&A session followed each group’s presentation, and eventually one large plan was decided on by all of the students and faculty. 

Clinton remains optimistic about the fight against climate change and gushed about the summit’s effect on her perspective of the situation. 

“I definitely felt a renewed sense of purpose after the meeting. I realize now just how plugged in people of my generation are to this issue because often it’s hard to tell if people really care or not. It was reassuring to know that I’m not the only one who cares about this issue. You know, I enjoy this planet and everything that it gives to me, and I feel this strong responsibility to take care of it in return. I want to do what I can to ensure that future generations don’t bear the costs and burdens that could have been avoided.”

While Clinton’s investment in climate change is very personal, Manolius holds a very different perspective. 

“I’m not a very outdoors person,” Manolius admitted. “My own interest is that I do believe in the severity of the crisis, and I believe the fallout of not adequately addressing the issue will be far worse than what we could spend to mitigate it now.” 

Manolius thinks that this summit is only the beginning of  a larger conversation to be had about climate change activism at SMC. 

“I’d like to see the addition of a science course to future summits,” Manolius said.  “I’d like to see a simulation with input from Biology or Chemistry students, just to get an idea of what’s possible and what isn’t. But I definitely think the summit is something that should be at Saint Mary’s for years to come, as we continue the conversation about climate.” 

The students debating came from the following classes: Professor Moseidjord’s Environmental Economics, Professor Anantharaman’s Environmental Justice, and Professor Woolpert’s Environmental Law.