You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2009.
Nearly eighty years ago the United States experienced a decade long drought that altered the course of American history. Now we live in a time with a drought severe enough to alter the history of the world. According to a Vanguard interview on Current TV, with the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, “there are fifty countries with nearly 2.7 billion people, who do not have access to water.” In a world where our differences are shrinking, so is the most valuable resource for our survival, our fresh water supply.
According to the United States drought monitor, the state of California reported a record to near record dry spring in hundreds of locations throughout the state. The drought was so severe it prompted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to declare a statewide drought. In a recent report from the US government Accountability Office, “At least 36 states will experience water shortages within the next five years.” The main areas to be effected will be the Southeast, Southwest, and the Pacific west. How bad is the drought at this moment? The Colorado River no longer ruins into the Gulf of Mexico. Lake Mead has experienced a 60 feet drop in the level of water within the past three years. The Everglades in South Florida is experiencing a shift in its ecosystem as the once freshwater swamp slowly evolves into a saltwater pit. Yet, the United States is not alone.
According to the same Vanguard interview, the northern Chinese province of Hebei, (pronounced Hébĕi) is home to more than two million people and half of the country’s production of wheat. However, the river that feeds life into the area and eventually Beijing has fallen 97% from its original capacity. The country itself is under a desertification. Nearly 2,000 sq/km of arable land turns into desert each year. Today, nearly 25% of China is a desert and one that is continuously growing everyday.
So what brought us to the breaking point? Although some climatologist lean toward global warming, other scientist and those who survived the Dust Bowl of the thirties blame ourselves. With the rapid rise in human population, the demands on necessary resources also drastically increased. Our excessive consumption of water has dried-up rivers and lakes, and has drained our reservoirs, and aqueducts. We, as a specie can not survive without water. Even the plants in which we consume need this resource. In fact the cultivation of the land is also blamed on the current global drought.
Whether is it the over-farming in the plains of China or the man-made canals that redirect runoff water in the United States, humans have altered the natural flow of water. Our methods in farming are far out dated in which they reflect a time when water was in abundance. However, now that we are experiencing a servere drought, our methods must adapt for the sake of our survival. Understanding the causation of a problem and the impact it has will lead to the development of a solution.
Areas that are overwhelming effected by the shortage of water have already begun to take action. Suburban cities in the US have implemented restricitions on the useage of water for lawns. Permitting alternating days dependant upon the numerical address. In Spain where the lack of water has set region against region, water is imported from France, city fountantins have been turned off, and a desalination plant near Barcelona is being constructed to extract water from the sea. Younger cities in the United States such as Irvine, California and Cape Coral, Florida, have constructed a reusable water system. The recycled water is comprised of a collection of used water from homes, businesses, as well as storm runoffs. Once it has been filtered, the water is then redistributed to be used for irrigation purposes for crops, golf courses, wetlands enhancement, and serves as a cooling system for industries. A recycled water system is a component of the citywide water system. Therefore dual distribution provides fresh and recycled water. In Saint Petersburg, Florida this system has reduced portable water usage by 50%. Imagine a similar system in operation throughout every state in the Union and the millions of fresh water that would be saved each year.
We have all witness the value of commodities such as food and energy soar within the year causing civil unrest in developing countries from the islands of Latin America to the plains of Africa. We have been fortunate to find alternatives for these commodities. However, for water there is no subsitute. Each of us has a responsibility, not to consume, but to conserve. Turn off the water when you brush your teeth, fix leaking faucets, do not water turfs. If we do not, water will be a commodity of the wealthy as the rest of humanity slowly dies of thirst.
Our generation came of age in era of digital war. Distant battles were fought on the sands of the fertile crescent and in the mountains of South Asia. Only news of their skyrocketing death counts awakening us to their toll. Without a draft or a combat home front, we, as a nation, have benefited from a largely removed experience of war.
Nevertheless, a newly politically active and largely Obama-crazed group of young American citizens have wiped their hands of these wars on terror, calling on the new President to withdraw immediately from the dual quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Obama, however, seems to have a different agenda.
Among the two wars launched by the Bush administration, President Obama has displayed keen interest in continuing only one: the war in Afghanistan. In the name of protecting the United States from international terrorism, President Obama has underscored the necessity of securing Afghanistan and its volatile borders.
However, to do so requires recognition of Afghanistan’s history of falling prey to the machinations of the world’s superpowers, including our very own United States and the former USSR. In the past thirty years, the once bustling metropolitan hub of Kabul has decayed enormously as a result of foreign intervention, its barren ruins reigned by ruthless vigilantes, bewildered foreign troops, and a shaky government.
In other words, in order to prevent future terrorism in Afghanistan, President Obama must ensure the Afghani people are provided with adequate resources to rebuild their nation. One concern expressed by many of the world’s developed countries has been the massive outflow of opium from the war-torn country. Last year, a U.N. survey revealed sharp increases in Afghanistan’s opium production. The survey also unveiled a staggering statistic: 90% of the world’s opium continues to be cultivated within Afghani borders.
Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to the struggles of Afghani farmers, and how close their livelihoods are tied to the Taliban’s growing drug trade.
Read the rest of this entry »
On Wednesday January 21st the Islamic Republic of Iran sentenced two men to six and three years in prison for their involvement in an alleged American plot to overthrow the government. The government accused these two men, along with two other defendants, of traveling to the United States, cooperating with American intelligence agents, and organizing protests and civil unrest on their return to Iran. Despite the serious nature of these charges, the trial was conducted in stark contrast with international standards: not all of the charges were disclosed to the defendants and prosecutor withheld evidence from the defense. Trials like this one are all too common in Iran and they often target prominent Iranian academics and activists.
The two defendants in this case were brothers Arash and Kamiar Alaei. The Alaei brothers are internationally recognized doctors working to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS in Iran. According to the World Health Organization Iran has one of the best HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs in the world, largely due to the work of the Alaei brothers. So why are Drs. Arash and Kamiar Alaei facing charges of treason?
According to the LA Times, the charges appear to be the result of the Alaei’s attendance at a medical conference in Washington DC sponsored by the U.S. State Department that discussed infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS. The limited Iranian diplomatic staff in Washington was aware of the conference and even invited participating Iranian medical professionals to a dinner event while they were in town. Clearly the Iranian authorities did not consider the conference to be part of an American conspiracy at the time.
Various international organizations have expressed their dismay with Iran’s handling of the case. Amnesty International considers the brothers to be prisoners of conscious because “they appear to have been imprisoned solely in relation to their work with international and specifically US institutions in the field of HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment”. Frank Donaghue, CEO of Physicians Without Borders, has stated “To all appearances, the arrest and now the trial of these two prominent and widely-traveled AIDS doctors seem to be an effort to shut the door on medical and public health collaboration on global health crises…a policy that is dangerous for the well-being of the Iranian people and for global health.”
The arrest of the Alaei brothers has dangerous implications for the future of Iran’s relationship with the rest the world, and with the United States in particular. The Alaeis’ case is indicative of the Iranian government’s harassment of Iranian activists and scholars who have connections with the West. This harassment only serves to further isolate Iranian society from the world community and punish the Iranian people. The Alaei’s are not the only victims of this ruling; anyone in Iran who is at risk of HIV/AIDS will suffer too. If Iran wants to be accepted as a member of the international community, it will have to stop persecuting its citizens whose only crime is reaching out across borders as they work for the betterment of their own society.
You can sign a petition asking for the release of the Alaei brothers at iranfreethedocs.org.
Through the collaborative effort of Brigham Young University and Harvard School of Public Health, researchers found that cleaner air increases life expectancy. In what would seem like an obvious conclusion, they have determined that the particles in pollution such as ash, soot, diesel exhaust, and aerosol chemicals has an adverse side-affect on human health. In the study that compared data from 51 US cities over the course of 20 years, 15% of the increased life expectancy was attributed to the reduction in air pollution, totaling 5 months. With this academic data known what do we now do with this information? Is it an economic concern or societal?
The United States remains the world’s most leading contributor of CO2 emissions. On average a US household emits 59 tons of CO2 per year, while the worlds average is 8 tons per year. That is a staggering differential number. The United States spends 53 percent more on healthcare than any other country, spending $5,267 per capita. However, when spending on the environment, the United States spends $292 per capita. More of our national budget should be allocated toward improving our environment. “We find that we’re getting a substantial return on our investments in improving our air quality. Not only we are getting cleaner air that improves our environment, but it is improving our public health,” said C. Arden Pope III, lead author of the study.
Therefore, the funds that are spent improving our environment through the reduction of emissions, redesigning of our infrastructure, and the preservation of lands, will provide a reduction in pollution. The reduction in pollution will improve the health of the citizens. Healthier citizens need less medical care causing a surplus in the funds allocated to our healthcare system. The surplus funds can then be used to either fund the increase in environmental spending or used as an investment in our healthcare system, by improving the quality of it.
Pope, along with fellow researcher from Harvard, Douglas Dockery, published their research in the New England Journal of Medicine. In the last two decades we have seen many strides in environmental progression, yet we have also witness many setbacks. Many hope that the United States is set to reverse our shortcomings, and lead the environmental crusade as we did 30 years ago. If that is true, our national health will also greatly improve.
There isn’t much new major news coming out of the BRIC countries this week, so instead, I will give you a quick roundup of some of the stories that have been developing through the weeks:
Russia is continuing its expansion of influence over its neighboring countries in whatever way possible. As we have documented through the weeks, it is clear that the conflict in Georgia, the continuing spat over the missile shield in Poland, and the energy dispute in Ukraine are all part and parcel of the same effort of Russia to bring itself back into global prominence. This week, Russia has promised Kyrgystan a $300 million loan and a welcoming-back into the fold if the former satellite country will close its U.S. military bases that are being used to support the war in Afghanistan.
It is interesting to ponder whether these moves are actually tactically relevant, or whether they are more psychological stabilizing to the Russian mind. To be sure, it is probably a bit of both. Russia may be looking well into the future at impending conflicts over energy and hoping to create a sort of barricade of large countries around it; at the same time, it seems in large part that the motivation is psychological, as Russia feels increasingly separated and ideologically differentiated from the countries that surround it, and needs to carve its own niche.
India continues to wrestle with Pakistan over the Mumbai crisis, and not much has changed. India has supplied what it believes to be proof of the attacker’s origins, which Pakistan has accepted–but denied any accountability. It also appears (according to Reuters in that article) that the U.S. has backed away its pressure and involvement in the situation, without which India is losing some steam. This let-down of international pressure is what I warned against allowing a few weeks ago, and despite my provocations it has occurred. Tomorrow’s-President Obama will be put in a tough situation to respond to Pakistan having missed the opportunity to make reasonable demands that will not be seen as hostile.
In lighter news, a fantastic movie, Slumdog Millionaire, won the Golden Globe for best picture and stands an almost sure-bet to receive an Oscar nomination. The movie tells the story of an Indian boy growing up in various areas of India (including Bombay/Mumbai) through his appearance on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” I might speak more about it in the future, but in the meantime, go out and see it both for its interesting portrait of life in the lower classes of India and its cinematic magnificence.
Brazil is still taking the lead on the Doha development round. This might be somewhat surprising given the current financial crisis, but it may be indicative of an important ideological difference from the incoming administration in the U.S–as we gear up for Keynesian deficit spending in the trillions and its potential corollary of protectionism, Brazil is still pushing free trade to the front of the agenda. It could just be an opportunistic move by a developing country looking to rise out of the crisis in a much better position, but in any case, evidences a commitment that is interesting at the least.
Finally, China is participating in a program among the ASEAN countries of Southeast Asia to create a fund to ward off effects of the financial crisis. This is interesting in part with its combination of other efforts to insulate itself from the effects of the crisis by pushing off effects onto other nations, as I wrote about here. I’m not quite sure what to make of this move, but it is worthwhile to watch China’s movements in this crisis. China is the largest creditor to the United States, assuring that both countries are linked inextricably while pursuing opposite goals. How each country emerges from this crisis will be important to the other.
Such is the state of the BRIC world on this Monday, January 19, 2009. There is an important story with significant impact on U.S. foreign policy and economic life in each nation, evidencing the importance of the study of these nations. I’ll make sure to keep you updated in the coming weeks, so keep checking back every Monday at mid-day.
Simone de Beauvoir, the renowned author, philosopher, and feminist, once wrote: “Change your life today. Don’t gamble on the future, act now, without delay.“ On January 9th, 2009, one hundred and one years after de Beauvoir’s birth, a prize honoring her legacy was awarded to the One Million Signatures Campaign for women’s rights in Iran. The Simone de Beauvoir Prize for Women’s Freedom is awarded by an international jury of activists and scholars and was founded to encourage solidarity among women fighting for equality around the world. This year they choose to honor the women and men of Iran who are fighting institutionalized legal discrimination in their country.
According to Iranian law a woman’s life has half the value of a man’s life. This means that if a man and a woman are both injured in an accident then the woman is automatically awarded half of the compensation given to the man. A woman’s testimony in court is worth less than the testimony than a man. Women are entitled to less inheritance than their male peers and mothers are barred from making important financial and medical decisions for their children. While women across the globe face discrimination in a variety of forms, the laws of Iran codify and legitimize this discrimination in a particularly shocking fashion.
The One Million Signatures Campaign was launched in August 2006 in order to gather signatures for a petition asking the Iranian Parliament to change these discriminatory laws. Hundreds of trained volunteers in cities throughout Iran are going door to door and canvasing to educate Iranians, particularly Iranian women, about the laws and asking for their support. The campaigners of the One Million Signatures Campaign are ordinary people reaching out to their friends, family, colleagues, and fellow citizens. Mohammad Shourab is one such volunteer who has written on the Campaign’s website, describing his experience gathering signatures. “I got the chance to listen to stories and woes of men and women from all walks of life who had for years kept their stories and the pain they felt from these laws to themselves,” he writes. Shrourab and his fellow campaigners face a variety of obstacles, including government harassment. The Campaign’s website has been hacked numerous times, meetings held in private homes have been broken up by security forces, and some activists have been arrested. But thanks to the tireless determination of activists and volunteers the Campaign continues to gather signatures.
This is why the the Simone de Beauvoir Prize is particulary significant: it has been awared to the Campaign as a whole and not just to one outstanding individual. I am very glad that this excellent example of grassroots activism is been recognized and celebrated. It serves as a profound reminder of the collective power of individuals, a power that de Beauvoir herself recognized. The volunteers, activists, and signatories of the One Million Signatures Campaign are certainly taking de Beauvoir’s advice. They aren’t gambling that the future will bring the equality they know they deserve. They are instead working for change today.
Since my travels throughout the breadth of the US with Ambassador Akbar Ahmed started in early September (2008), I have really gained a better understanding of the diversity and complexities of Islam in America, from the Bosnians in St. Louis to the Somalians in Grand Island, Nebraska. As a young American that cares deeply for his countries health and direction, I have always paid close attention to one particular issue which Ambassador Ahmed discusses quite frequently: the importance of healing our strained relationship with the Muslim world. Obama, he says, ’simply can’t afford to adopt the same policies towards the Muslim world as Bush’.
President Obama, the Ambassador notes, will have his hands full with the Muslim world, from ending the onslaught in the Gaza Strip, to stabilizing Iraq, to confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to battling militants in Pakistan’s tribal regions. So how can the new Commander in Chief rehabilitate America’s image abroad, bring down the temperature in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and most importantly, how can he re-store America’s dignity and ’soft power’ throughout the world that Bush carelessly neglected over the last eight years?
As we traveled from West Palm Beach to Miami via rental car, I asked the Ambassador and my team members two questions: what do you think Obama will do and what do you think Obama should do with each of the aforementioned conflicts?
The following is a brief summary of our thoughts and suggestions for Obama’s policy towards the Muslim world.
What do we think Obama will Do?
Frankie Martin and Jonathan Hayden have been research assistants for Ambassador Ahmed for many years and traveled with him to the Muslim world as part of the Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization project sponsored by the Brookings Institution. I asked them both what they thought Obama would do in the Gaza Strip.
Frankie said that Obama will replicate the Clinton administrations agenda. He will ask diplomats (many of which were the same advisors to Clinton, like Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk) to sit down with Hamas and Israeli leaders to try and immediatly broker a cease-fire as the initial step towards a new round of ‘peace talks’. There is a huge question mark, however, with their long term plan. Will Obama stand by his word and engage in discussions with Hamas? Or, is this simply false information? Clinton, after all, didn’t accomplish all too much, and saw practically no positive results with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Obama will also have to deal with Iran as a growing regional influence. According to Martin, he will continue multilateral pressure and will ‘probably go back and forth, from hard talk to actual dialogue’, which is actually no different than Bush’s agenda. Hayden predicted that Obama will never have ‘face to face’ talks with President Ahmadinejad, but he will probably communicate with through EU members like France and Germany. Simply talking to Iran could be seen as ‘appeasement’, a term often attributed to the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich. Essentially, they see no difference between Obama’s preliminary plans and Bush’s failed policies. After all, Iran is still pursuing nuclear capabilities, much to the chagrin of the Western countries.
Iraq, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game, according to Hayden. Domestic politics in the US will have a big role in Obama’s agenda. He must fulfill his promise to bring troops home, or else he will lose the respect of the Americans that voted for him partly for this reason. He will most likely start pulling out troops when he can, but the amount of pressure he faces from Congress and from the American people will most likely set the timetable for the withdrawal.
Ambassador Ahmed was the former administrator to the Waziristan province of Afghanistan, where much of the turmoil surrounding the US’s failures originates – so to say he is an expert on the region is not misleading. He has taught the team the complexities of tribal societies and tribal codes of honor, which essentially explains the recent character, conduct, and actions of tribesmen in the region. Martin and Hayden both say that Obama will most likely go through with the troop surge, partially because he guaranteed the American public during the campaign for the presidency that he will defeat the Taliban.
But separating the domestic matters inside of Afghanistan and Pakistan is impossible, primarily because both tribal societies are interlinked with one another through the Khyber Pass. There is a chance, both note, that Obama will continue the fight on terror in Pakistan, which he hinted at nearly two years ago.
What should he do?
The conflict in the Gaza Strip will be an immediate problem for the Obama administration. Martin thinks Obama should talk with Hamas because ‘the idea of ignoring Hamas is ridiculous’. In essence, it is the government of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Martin’s argument was ‘If the Israelis (their bitter enemy) can negotiate with them, so can the Americans’. Both Martin and Hayden agreed that it is imperative for Obama to re-energize the two bases by articulating the vision of a peace process. Simply supporting one side is fundamentally detrimental. Peace cannot be achieved if the US decides that one side is right and the other side is wrong.
It is important for Obama to ensure the long term stability of the government and democracy that the Americans have planted in Iraq. Pulling the troops out prematurely simply for political measures could be a dangerous scenario for the infant state. The last thing Obama needs, Martin notes, is for Iraq to ’slip into a hellish anarchic state’. To insure the stability of the Iraqi government, Martin and Hayden recommended the following: replace half the soldiers with ‘infrastructure people’, including foreign servicemen, peace corps, and a new civil service. Obama also must continue to work with Iraq’s tribal leaders to help create a unified government. All in all, Obama shouldn’t change course drastically, but he should be careful with the timing of troop withdrawal. Iraq’s security forces must be able to handle possible insurgencies from foreign territories.
Iran’s pursuit of nuclear energy capabilities is a perplexing matter for the US. Obama must insure that safety of the Iranian people, first and foremost. If he decides to use military action, a Shia awakening will erupt (if it hasn’t already happened), which could spread throughout the entire Middle East. Hayden notes that Obama needs ‘much more diplomacy, and many more conferences’ to show the Iranian leadership that the American leadership has the capacity to not only listen, but also the ability to ferment and forge a lasting relationship built on mutual cooperation. Most importantly, the US cannot allow Iran to be isolated. Middle Eastern politics cannot be separated from Iran’s growing regional influence, especially with Hamas and Hezbollah in mind. Martin even went as far as to say ‘the US must learn to possibly live with a nuclear Iran’. That may be the Obama administrations biggest challenge. Certainly, the US military (and economy) cannot afford to fight another war.
Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Ahmed and his research assistants note, is the number one hotspot for the US. Obama must forge a relationship with the already maligned Pashtun tribesmen who are now giving their energy and lives in support to the Taliban cause. The Pashtun tribal code, the pashtunwali, is under threat from forces like the US government, the Afghani government, the Indian government, and the Pakistanis military’s bombardment of the tribal regions in pursuit of ’so-called’ terrorists. If Obama wants to ’save face’ in Afghanistan, he must work with the Pashtuns that dominate both Afghanistan and Pakistan. His so called ’surge’ will only inflame the Pashtuns’ sense of siege. More diplomatic measures must be taken to insure that the Afghani and Pakistani tribes have a say in the political endeavors of the US, along with the Afghani and Pakistani government.
In essence, Obama doesn’t differ all that much with the Bush doctrine: he supports Israel, vows to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda, is weary of the Iranians have nuclear technology, and isn’t opposed to fighting ‘al-Qaeda’ in Pakistan’s tribal regions. So much for all that change he has talked about.
We concluded our discussion by tackling (and trying to re-define) Bush’s ‘War on Terror’. The fight against extremism in the Muslim world should not be regarded as a war (for violence only reciprocates violence) but more of a challenge to win the hearts and minds of people that don’t have the educational tools or the living standards to live a happy life (hence why they often feel like violence is a last resort to get what they want). Solving these political hotspots starts with educational funding, diplomacy, and maybe (but reluctantly) military force (if the intelligence is unquestionably solid).
Obama must show that he actually cares about places like the Gaza Strip and Kashmir and recognize that the Muslim world is no monolith. Showing that he cares about these two spots will go a very long way in the minds of Muslims worldwide. If Obama wants to see a ‘certain kind’ of Islam, he must avoid Bush’s policies – Bush actually created more extremism with his failure to understand the intricacies of Islam, tribal codes, and moreover, the importance of the Palestinians’ struggle.
Obama’s biggest challenge will be winning the hearts and minds of the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Pakistanis, and the Iranians. As Americans, I think we all can agree on this – the last thing we need is another Bush.
As Obama takes office next week, I hope his administration does not turn back on its commitment to leadership in global health and development. The official Change.gov website claims:
“Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty and hunger around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to achieve that goal.”
The non-partisan Brookings Institute’s Colin Bradford and Noam Unger wrote a brief memo to the President-elect, entitled “Redefine America’s Global Development Cooperation,” in which they briefly lay out their view of Obama’s stance on global development as well as give their recommendations. One such recommendation is to “Mobilize American generosity and goodwill.”
To this end, Obama has proposed the creation of:
- A Classroom Corps to help underserved schools.
- A Health Corps to serve in the nation’s clinics and hospitals.
- A Clean Energy Corps to achieve the goal of energy independence.
- A Veterans Corps to support the Americans who serve by standing in harm’s way.
Additionally, Obama has proposed that college students engaging in 100 hours of community service a year receive a $4,000 education credit.
First, I hope that the launch of such programs can actually survive such tough economic times. But more importantly, I hope that Obama’s progress in meeting domestic challenges extends to fulfill commitments he made to address global crises as well.
One way to do this is by incorporating an international component to the “Corps” programs. Such programs would help youth network across borders and learn from others doing similar work in other countries, while fostering international engagement and cooperation on pressing issues. Once upon a time youth flocked to Peace Corps, but ask any returned volunteer today, and it’s evident that many of the programs have long been neglected and are in need of reassessment.
While it is important promote service to one’s own country, current challenges in poverty, health, climate change, and security are not occurring within the confined of our borders. Young people should help keep the pressure on the incoming administration to fulfill commitments made on global poverty and prove that we are ready to meet the demand for both domestic and international public service.
Americans for Informed Democracy is running numerous programs in the upcoming months to help ensure that youth voices are present in guiding the new administration’s policies. Keep checking the website and get engaged! Now’s the time to get a move on!
I met today with a recent alumni from the University of Connecticut named Jessica Mortell in South Florida. She has spent the last year developing a bicycle sharing program for the densely populated center of the university. Fitting upon the subject matter, we rode our bicycles to a local park to conduct the interview. Sitting on a bench surrounded by the plethora of birds who migrated South, we began discussing the environment. ”We humans have a tremendous impact upon our environment,” says Mortell who has a civil engineering degree. ”I want to work and protect against urban sprawl.” Mortell, like so many of her peers, wants to redesign the way we live, work, and transport ourselves.
A year ago a friend of Mortell’s suggested the creation of a bicycle plan as they were studying for exams. The two debated the reality of such a program and from there the seeds of an organization was established. Starting in the Spring of 2008, Mortell began investigating the steps needed to begin such a program. Fortunate for her, she discovered a Senior Design Project from 2005. Available through the Institute of Transportation Engineers at UConn, the project provided information on university density, projected bike lanes, paths, location of racks, etc. Since the design of the program was previously created, her next step was to confront the bureaucratic juggernaut known as “The Administration.” Read the rest of this entry »
