Panel Four: Design Decarbonization, March 30, 2021

Abstract

In this panel discussion, Kadambari Baxi (Architecture), Sandra Goldmark (Theatre), and Martin Stute (Environmental Science) discuss what it means to design for decarbonization from the perspective of their fields of expertise. They explore how they structure their courses to investigate and problematize design and decarbonization issues and how their courses have evolved to address issues of sustainability.

Panelists: Kadambari Baxi, Sandra Goldmark, Martin Stute

Joscelyn Jurich (Ed.)

Student Moderators: Linda Chen, Olivia Wang

1 Panel Discussion

Linda Chen

Hi everyone, welcome to today’s session. Before we get started, I would like to read a brief land acknowledgment. (See Rosales Introduction).

Olivia Wang

And now we will do introductions of the faculty panelists: please share your department teaching and research scholarship and your role in the Barnard community.

Kadambari Baxi

Hi, everyone, and thank you to the CEP for organizing this panel. I am Kadambari Baxi, she/her. I am a Professor of Practice in Architecture, and I teach design studios at the introductory and senior levels. Occasionally, I also teach seminars on special topics, such as Environmental Visualizations. My practice centers on design research projects that circulate as exhibitions in art, design, and architecture forums. I will mention one project briefly, as it may link to this panel’s theme. This is a work in progress, a spatial film montage that uses two sites: the United Nations headquarters in New York and the Supreme Court in Washington DC. The film excerpts climate actions at UN COP Conferences over the last ten years in ten different cities worldwide. This montage is paired with another one, where I use the live court footage of a recent youth climate case in the US: “Juliana v USA,”¹ projected on the Supreme Court plaza. The film juxtaposes two different kinds of climate actions: activists’ disruptions at international climate negotiations and climate litigation demanding the constitutional rights of future generations.

Sandra Goldmark

My name is Sandra Goldmark, and I teach in the Theatre department. I am a designer by training, and a lot of my work over the past years has been a transition from designing shows to looking at the theatre industry and the performing arts at the organizational or institutional levels, and to begin thinking about how we can incorporate climate impacts, climate responses, and climate justice into our practice as theatre artists. Everything from our design practices, to our budgeting processes, to how we can integrate and understand the overlap between questions of climate change and social justice, which are very much alive, of course, in the American theatre. That is my teaching and research thread in terms of my role in the community. I am also the Director of Sustainability for the campus, which means that I have been helping to move our campus forward in how we think about climate change across academics, operations, campus culture, the student experience—all of these different facets of our campus and our campus life. How can we think about this question of climate change in all that we do and all the decisions that we make? I hope today’s conversation will connect to these themes.

Martin Stute

Martin Stute is my name. I am a Professor in the Environmental Science Department at Barnard. I am also a faculty member in the Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences at Columbia and in the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy that is working on batteries, carbon sequestration, and various other energy-related things. My teaching is mostly focused currently on the senior seminar, which is a joint Columbia/Barnard course where students work on their research and write a senior thesis. Every year, we have a lot of students, but maybe half or so of the students have a project that is related in some way or another to climate change. We actually have a carbon sequestration project at the moment. I also teach classes in Hydrology and the Workshops in Sustainable Development, which maybe I can come back to later. More interesting perhaps is the research that I am doing because it is very closely related to the topic today. I guess my expertise is in water on land, mostly. I actually have studied water on all continents of the planet, and one of my main contributions to science has been to reconstruct past climate conditions, using groundwater as an archive of past climate conditions—how cold or warm it was in the past, how wet or dry it was in the past. For decades, I have been working on this topic.

More recently, I have been moving to more applied topics that also relate to water, including hydraulic fracturing and its health effects—except it is very hard to raise money for it, so I have not been able to do as much as I wanted to, and then finally carbon mineralization, which is basically trying to find a safe way to store CO₂ collected at sources or from the air directly in the subsurface. I was very much involved for eight years in this study in Iceland, where CO₂ is taken from a geothermal power plant and then injected into the ground. We mineralized the CO_2, so it’s stored, not as CO₂ but as carbonites in the subsurface. It was surprisingly successful, and it was the first application of this approach in a field site.

Linda Chen

Thank you so much for the brief introduction and moving on to our first question, What is decarbonization and why is it so urgent, and what exactly does the phrase “design decarbonization” mean?

Martin Stute

The panel has been thinking about those questions, and we felt that it might be a good idea to explain what decarbonization is as a starting point. We have prepared a few slides. In Fig. 25.1, I am showing you a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration from an ice core in Antarctica covering the past 350,000 years. Temperature is reconstructed from the isotopic composition of the ice, and the CO₂ is actually measured in small air bubbles that form in the ice when it comes to the surface—so it is a measure of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. For about the last 350,000 years, you can see how uniform the correlation between them has been. So CO₂ and temperature are very closely related, although the relationship is somewhat complicated.

Fig. 25.1

CO₂ and temperature over the last 350,000 years from the Vostok ice core and atmospheric measurements. (Source: Adapted from the Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences)

Clearly, there is some connection between the two, and you can show that in a laboratory, when you have CO₂ in a glass box and shine a light on it, the temperature rises, more so than in a box that does not contain CO₂. What is really scary is the right part of that graph that shows you temperature and CO₂ in the last 50 years or so. We currently have a CO₂ concentration of 416 parts per million (ppm), and the temperature in Antarctica has risen by about five or six degrees Fahrenheit in the same time period. So what we are experiencing right now is enormous increases in CO₂ levels compared to historical levels. The last time we had that high a level was 3 million years ago, and then the earth was much, much warmer than it is today.

If you wanted to project this to 2100, the blue curve would reach far beyond the top of the figure, and we are exceeding any precedent in the last few million years. These high CO₂ concentrations will cause all sorts of havoc. We see the beginning of it: massive storms, flooding, droughts, wildfires, massive migrations, death at a very high level, it will trigger wars—so it’s really a disaster that is in front of us.

The concept of decarbonization: I wanted to show you this diagram and that is my last one (See Fig. 25.2). It is a little complicated, so let me guide you through it. In a nutshell, decarbonization means we are trying to do whatever we are doing right now in terms of standard of living, providing food for most people, living a safe life, but without these enormous CO₂ emissions. This graph shows how challenging this is. We are currently emitting about 50 gigatons of CO₂ (equivalent) per year, as a combination of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. Emissions will likely rise in the future, and then in mid-century sort of drop off a little bit. Climate scientists tell us that if we want to limit climate change to about two degrees warming global average, we have to actually follow the red curve in the diagram. We have to reach zero net emissions of greenhouse gases in this scenario, by 2090. We can accomplish this by avoiding the CO₂ emissions in the green area of the diagram using wind energy, renewable solar energy, and perhaps nuclear energy. Now, the problem is that there are considerable CO₂ and methane emissions that are very, very difficult to avoid. This includes airplanes, cement production, and agriculture that emit a lot of methane. It is very hard to completely get rid of those emissions. So in order to get to zero, we actually have to have negative emissions. We have to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere by growing trees, increasing uptake of CO₂ by the oceans, or taking CO₂ out of the atmosphere and putting it into the subsurface and storing it there. A lot has to happen in order to get to zero and fast. My final point is this graph is originally from 2017 and has been publicized by the National Academy of Sciences in 2019, but it is outdated already. Newer studies say that we have to reach carbon neutrality already by 2050 because we need to limit global warming to not 2 but 1.5 °C. So our window of opportunity is actually even more compressed. Hopefully, that is enough background for defining this term.

Fig. 25.2

Potential future carbon dioxide emissions for ‘business as usual’ as well as what would be required to limit warming below 2 °C. (Sources: UNEP, 2017; NAS, 2019)

Sandra Goldmark

Given what Martin just said, laying out in the plainest terms the urgency and the scale of the problem, there are a number of reactions we might have. One reaction might be to be totally overwhelmed and say, “I don’t know what I can do about this.” Another might be and what I hope that this workshop is inviting us to do, is to say, “Okay, given where I am and where I am working, what can I do?” One of the things I wanted to talk about today is how—and in a way, this is going to kind of make it seem worse, but in a way, hopefully, it’ll get us somewhere that might feel better in the end—this question of decarbonization is also linked to so many other issues and questions that we are living with and grappling with. I use this visual exercise in one of my classes to begin to open up a conversation about the intersections between the specific metric of carbon in the atmosphere and some of the other disciplines, challenges, and human quandaries that are actually all interconnected. Figure 25.3 is like Martin’s graph, but just zoomed-in—you are looking at 1000 years of carbon dioxide emissions growth. Temperature follows the same “hockey stick” pattern.² Figure 25.4 represents World Population growth over the last 12,000 years; Fig. 25.5 is species extinction over the last 200 years. Figure 25.6, hard drive capacity by year, follows the same pattern. I could continue with the hockey sticks—sugar consumption per capita, extraction of resources per capita, storage unit capacity in the U.S.—it goes on and on. But I am going to pause on this next one: Fig. 25.7 is the reverse shape, interestingly enough visually from a design point of view, because this is the distribution of emissions relative to the percentage of the population living in extreme poverty. The richest 10% emit at least 50% of emissions. These multiple hockey sticks hopefully help illustrate, visually, that there are a number of artistic and disciplinary ways to think about the question of decarbonization and the related challenges we face. And furthermore, as we see with the sugar consumption graph, it can’t all be tied back to population growth. It’s actually about the fact that, as time moves on, we’ve begun extracting more resources per capita on top of the actual growth in population, so in that way, it’s twofold.

Fig. 25.3

1000 years of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration showing dramatic recent increase from anthropogenic emissions. (Source: Earth Institute of Columbia University)

Fig. 25.4

World Population growth over the last 12,000 years. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Fig. 25.5

Species extinction over the last 200 years. (Source: Extinction Symbol)

Fig. 25.6

Hard drive capacity by year. (Source: UCLA)

Fig. 25.7

The distribution of global population’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2015, by income level. (Source: Statista)

Kadambari Baxi

Thank you, both Martin and Sandra. Sandra compares visualizations of data in compelling ways. Martin talks about scientific data that is also visualized very simply, and very impactfully. I think the message is very straightforward, clear, and urgent. We must also acknowledge that decarbonization is a debate, and often, different angles may be highlighted with the same data. Data can be parsed in many different ways. Right now we’re at this moment where–a kind of complex conversation between past, present, and future that also leads to some controversial questions, such as: who governs decarbonization? Who funds it? To emphasize these types of questions: I want to share three images: Fig. 25.9 from “Our World in Data” shows: “who has contributed most to the global CO₂ emissions?” You can see USA, EU, China, and India are among the major contributors. Note that these figures are based on production-based emissions, which means that they represent CO₂ produced domestically from fossil fuel combustion and cement, and do not correct for international trade. Excluded here are any consumption-based emissions. This inclusion, most likely, will significantly increase the numbers for the USA and EU. Seeing this scale of comparative accumulations as country-based comparisons, to me, suggests obvious implications. Figure 25.8 shows per capita CO₂ emissions, and this world-view of rich countries versus poor countries is probably not surprising for anyone. Any decarbonization questions, and debates, will need negotiations and solutions at many scales: the individual scale, the national scale, per capita scale—there are so many different ways to look at the urgency around such questions.

Fig. 25.8

Global distribution of per capita CO₂ emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for energy and cement production, 2019. Land use change is not included. (Source: “Our World in Data,” Creative Commons)

Fig. 25.9

Contributions to global CO2 emissions. (Source: “Our World in Data,” Creative Commons)

The last Fig. 25.10, simply breaks down the emission sources and what remains in the atmosphere: 59%. That is a very large number! But what I want to emphasize are also the different sources noted on the left side. They are shown as separate sectors, but are, of course, also interdependent. In academia, for teaching and learning purposes, the different sectors suggest interdisciplinary conversations and research around how they shape many aspects, for example the built environment, our society, etc. But what we really want to highlight here is the urgency represented by the 59% number and the emissions that remain in the global atmosphere.

Fig. 25.10

Sources of current global emissions and natural sinks of greenhouse gases. Sources data from IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group Three. Sinks data on carbon dioxide from the Global Carbon Project (adjusted here for whole greenhouse gas mixes). (Graphic by Project Drawdown © 2021)

Designing decarbonization, thus, is an urgent discussion. It includes issues of global governance, scientific knowledge as well as worldwide collaborations, and further, must also include locally specific activism that can also lead to large impacts. We should consider design as a kind of collaborative authorship. Our title includes “Design” in the most expanded sense: we design curricula here at Barnard. We design our lives to a certain extent.

Sandra Goldmark

To echo what Kadambari said, and make it a little more personalized, looking at Martin’s Fig. 25.1, as a theatre designer, many years ago I would have said, “Well, what do I have to do with this? What does a theatre artist have to do with decarbonization?” I started with what Kadambari indicated as the first thing, trying to sort of decarbonize my own design practice or my own designs in theatre. And then I realized over the years that what Kadambari is inviting us to do, i.e. all participate in the process of designing decarbonization, is incredibly valuable and necessary. If we are going to be thinking about emissions along with species extinction, and social justice, and equity, we are all going to have to be part of the process of designing a decarbonized future. It’s not just about emissions, it’s about the whole complex package.

Olivia Wang

Thank you for sharing, we will move on to the next question, which is how have you integrated this theme in your courses so far or any thoughts on future courses?

Kadambari Baxi

Last year, I taught a studio course for seniors, Architectural Design III, that explored the role of museums in exhibiting issues related to climate change, and in providing climate forums for the general public. Students designed what we termed a “Climatorium,” at two natural history museums in New York and Berlin. “Climatorium” is a word that is made up, similar to a planetarium that models deep space and atmospheres, students designed spatial installations that “made-visible” complex issues related to climate change. Another course, Environmental Visualizations of NYC, is one that I co-taught with Karen Fairbanks. We used Newtown Creek in Brooklyn and Gowanus Canal as sites, both of these are Superfund sites. We were looking at mitigation strategies and also how city and state planning agencies are conducting cleanup efforts, but that also led to large-scale planning and zoning initiatives.

Sandra Goldmark

For my classes, as I mentioned, the first step is decarbonizing my design practices, and the way I teach design, and the way we practice in our classes. So, in terms of set and costume design classes at Barnard, I have started incorporating practices built around circularity, because embracing circular design and production principles is one of the easiest ways to slash your emissions from design and production. In the classroom, I have a series of exercises to explore circularity and how students can approach design with those principles in place. In one specific exercise, for example, students build a model. For the next project, they are given the model of one of their classmates, and they can only design using the materials they find in the first model. It is a way to simply and clearly physicalize and actualize the concepts of circularity in three dimensions. As another example, in my costume design classes, I have started incorporating modules around labor and environment, i.e., looking at the environmental impacts of our design practices and the social impacts. Students learn about what textiles are made of, who makes our garments and apparel, how much they are paid, and how that knowledge can influence our design decisions. We also have modules on budgeting, which include thinking about how to track and budget sustainably in a theatrical production. The second part of the question, designing decarbonization, is a much newer thing for me to be trying to teach in my courses because most of my courses are within theatre. I have really been playing with the question in a first-year seminar and in a course I developed last year during the pandemic. It was called Change and Climate Change, and that is where I am really trying to unpack some of the questions that point to how we might “design decarbonization” by first understanding change itself. How are we going to change all of these systems we live within? What are different theories of change, what are different approaches to it? For that course, I brought in several fellow faculty members to do guest visits to physicalize and embody this idea of interdisciplinarity and collaboration as a necessary part of designing our decarbonized future.

Martin Stute

So I wanted to start with a bit of history. Of course, climate change and sustainability, in general, are the heart and center of whatever we do in the Environmental Science Department. But we did play a role in putting climate front and center for undergraduates when I started at Barnard in 1995. Supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, we built a sequence of classes that deal with Earth systems. I was involved in developing the course about the Earth’s Climate System (see Pfirman and Winckler, Chap. 19). This was the first comprehensive climate change class on the Columbia/Barnard campus. It was also the first class that I am aware of that was served on the internet in 1995, which is pretty early in the process. That class still exists. It is our basic introductory course for the major and also has always been co-taught, which is a concept that I think we are pushing a little bit in this context. So it works—it has worked for like 25 years, so we should keep pushing along those lines.

I teach the environmental science senior seminar; we have a lot of topics that deal with research on climate change. I am an advisor of a project that uses rocks and water to capture CO₂ from the atmosphere and concentrate it to sequester it automatically. I teach hydrology. Water is my field, and of course, there are many interactions between water and CO₂. We use water as a carrier for CO₂, we need water for chemical reactions that involve CO₂, and water and climate change are very, very tightly connected. The effects of climate change on the water cycle might be more important than just temperature changes, for example, because we all want to survive and we need to drink water, eat food, etc., so it is front and center in that class.

I did want to mention one more thing. I teach a workshop in sustainable development, which is a concept, maybe of broad interest. Students basically form a consulting firm in their class and they work for an outside client on a real world problem, and often those projects involve climate change. We were once tasked, for example, by another campus to figure out electricity consumption and how that could be reduced, and the students found out that in one giant laboratory building, just by having motion sensors in there, the institution would save $40,000 a year of electricity costs. It is an interesting concept. Students learn how to work as a team, which is actually something that most of us do for the rest of our lives. We are rarely working alone on anything and yet we are not prepared for it. We do not learn how to work in a team, we are not educated about how to do this, students aren’t and faculty aren’t. So that is a skill that students learn and I, as an instructor, step back, more and more. I am really only actively involved in the first couple of weeks or so, and then they pretty much take over and run the whole show themselves. And then, finally, I do give a lot of guest lectures about various climate related topics in various departments, not just the sciences. This Iceland study in my background here I have talked about 20–25 times already in various forms.

Linda Chen

Looking at these slides, we can kind of understand the gravity of the situation. Professor Goldmark, earlier, you mentioned that we should incorporate decarbonization design into our daily lives. Do you have any tips on what we could or should be doing about this?

Sandra Goldmark

That is such a big question because who is “we?” Is it me as an individual, is it faculty and students, is it Barnard as an institution, is it New York City, is it the federal government? There is every level of “we” embedded in that question. I am a believer—given the urgency of what Martin laid out in that first slide—in looking at the action at each level. I get a lot of questions because of my work on sustainable consumption along the lines of, “Who should be doing this? Is it the individual consumer? Is it the businesses? Is it the policymakers?” and I say, “Yes! All of the above! We do not have any time to wait for somebody else to start.” There is a lot of finger-pointing in the world of sustainability. There are a lot of people saying, “The government should make policies,” or “It’s all the corporation’s fault,” and then the corporations say, “Well, there’s no consumer demand, so we can’t do this.” Everybody at every level can—and must—take action now. That might sound kind of huge but it is not, because I am not saying everyone can do this work and be done right now, but I am just saying we can and have to start. One way to start is to say, “I am teaching a course next semester. Is there a module or reading I might include?” That is one of the things this workshop is hoping to open up. Or to say on an individual level, “Is there a practice that I am engaged in that does not feel right for me?” I did not try to go 100% green when I started. I just started realizing that my theatrical designs were kind of wasteful and nasty, and I began changing the way I designed one show. I bought less stuff. The next show, I bought no stuff. And before I knew it, ten years later, I had committed my whole career to climate action.

But of course, let’s not forget the policy level. In addition to looking at our own practices, our own spheres of influence, we need to push for policies that will help move things at scale. Most importantly, we need to approach all of this work with a justice and equity lens. That’s something we are in an excellent position to do at Barnard. So perhaps I should not even say, “Just start,” because we have started. I feel like everyone at Barnard has either started this work or is way down the road, as in the case of Martin, who has been showing the way for many years. So, it is more a question of evaluating where you are and continuing to turn up the volume.

Martin Stute

I am very much on board with what Sandra just said, but to rank the efforts, a little bit, I would say if we want to have any hope in addressing this problem, we need a very large-scale shift, and that can only happen on a global scale. We do not have control over the globe, but we do have some control of what is happening in this country, and you saw earlier how important we are. So if I ranked the efforts, I would say the number one thing is, make a difference on the political level: vote. You already see how much of a difference one year made compared to where we were last spring to where we are this spring in terms of climate change discussions and what is actually on the agenda. It’s a huge difference. So that is a requirement without which we will not have a clue to address this problem. I am not against all the personal measures you put in place—that is part of the big picture. But the other one is the most important one in my mind, so we have to move people’s minds, we have to generate some groundswell of support for these massive changes we have to see in the future of our lives.

Sandra Goldmark

I totally agree, but I just want to jump in and say, I think the way you get the political will, the way you get the groundswell is by everybody clicking in and pushing for change in their homes, their community, their sphere of influence because people vote where their hearts are, people vote where their communities are, people vote where their belief systems are. So political change doesn’t happen in a vacuum; politicians need to see the political will from everybody, and for me, that can start at a very personal, individual level. It just can’t stop there.

Kadambari Baxi

I absolutely agree with both Martin and Sandra, on all of the above, of course. I would echo and emphasize that what we really need is systematic change, and we need structural change. So how do we achieve that? Certainly, it was on my list to say to vote and to participate in political action. But we also have to recognize that for some people, voting may be a privilege. Moreover, one is often not able to vote on global issues. Electoral democracy is based on nation-states and the power of nation-states. I would argue that to generate any kind of structural and systematic change, in terms of individual action, organizing collectively is essential. We can organize to produce collective action. We need to learn how to organize. As Martin said, we have seen over the last year that activism matters. Given the urgency, I think we need cultural activism, we need imagination that facilitates collective collaboration. We are not all going to agree, but we need processes and forums, participatory processes where these issues can be debated and some decisions can be made. The last thing I would say is that we must also think of the role of universities in this. This is our realm. We are knowledge producers, and we are also cultural producers, and I think that in terms of these discussions, we also need to think about our places in universities and what universities can do. As a quick example, consider the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) over the last four years. When most of the climate data was removed from its websites during the Trump administrations, a university consortium (Environmental Data and Governance Initiative: EDGI, https://envirodatagov.org/) was formed to quickly download the data before it was lost for public use. Universities can become open sources for this kind of important data.

Olivia Wang

Thank you everyone. We will now be doing a Q & A session so you may unmute to ask your question, or you can also put your question in the chat.

Ralph Ghoche (Architecture)

I have a question. I am in a design department as well, and I wonder to what extent this word “design” is used, I think, very broadly here, but also very specifically. There is an example Sandra gave of really heavy engagement with her students and design practices in the Theatre department. But I wonder to what extent we can shift the focus back on Barnard with our design practices. I wonder to what extent we can actually engage with design practices on campus. I think Sandra you mentioned that we need to act more locally. Do you think there’s a desire on the part of students to focus more on the very local institutions of Barnard and Columbia and do you think we could target design much more in the very institutions which we are part of?

Sandra Goldmark

I feel like we have gotten into this whole sustainability debate of the individual versus the collective and I just do not see it as an either/or. I do not think you go out and vote and then you do whatever the hell you want in your own life. To me, they are two tracks that need to move forward at the same time. And I am not saying anybody on the panel is saying that. This is a debate that has been happening for years in the climate change world. I think that we need to look at our design practices at Barnard, not only to reduce our own emissions, but as Kadambari was indicating, to pioneer and to serve as a model to train the next generation. And so I think there are huge opportunities coming down the pike for the college.

Martin Stute

Construction is going to happen again on the Barnard campus. Altschul is going to be very heavily renovated and decarbonization is very high on the agenda, looking at architects and making choices there. Several of us have been involved in those discussions and are going to push very hard that this will be as carbon neutral as possible. That is definitely a campus opportunity and we should definitely have done more of this when the previous two buildings were built, but we lost that opportunity to a large extent. There are many student organizations that help with various activities on campus, so students can be active there. That is one thing. Then, by building a real-world impact into our classes, such design studios and workshops where students work with outside entities, they can really make a difference. These are real projects, the students produce something that can be and often is implemented. So there is a real-world impact that students can make within those courses.

Kadambari Baxi

I think that it is very interesting to see what happened last year, with the pandemic. There were so many things we thought that could never happen, like working from home at such a large scale, that had to become a quick reality. Going forward, we should really assess what we have learned from this last year. I remember Sandra and I had a very quick conversation when I ran into her when the campus was closed and nobody was around. None of us were allowed to use our offices on campus but we noted how all the lights were on in Diana and in Milstein. I hope we can challenge our business as usual practices and learn something different from this entire pandemic year.

Linda Chen

There is a quick question in the chat. How important is divestment from fossil fuel companies as a practical and or symbolic step?

Martin Stute

I think it is important. I was not involved in Barnard deciding to divest from fossil fuel, but there was a strong movement some years ago. I think Sandra was involved. It is a good thing. How much difference it really makes in the end, I do not know because at this point, not a tremendous amount of people are willing to divest on the national level. So if that grows, I think there is a chance that it will make an impact. I am not sure if it has yet, but it is worth doing and certainly has value, but Sandra, you are the expert here.

Sandra Goldmark

I think of divestment as part of a portfolio of climate action. Just like I think the Theatre department should figure out how they will take action, I think the financial management of the College needs to figure out what their role is. So, if you are working in Theatre, you need to put that house in order. If you work on investments and endowment you need to put that house in order. Of course, people pay more attention to certain arms of the College than others. But for me, it is just part of a philosophy where every decision-making process needs to take climate, impact, and justice into account. Every single one. So yes, investments for sure, but also purchasing, design, renovating Altschul, you name it, this needs to be a lens that we use when we make decisions, and so absolutely investment should be part of it.

The only thing about divestment that I don’t like is when it becomes seen as the only thing we should do. Then, I personally do not agree, because I think it is not enough. I am not looking for just the one symbolic act. I am looking for consistent and coherent actions across all spheres and operational levels. For me, that is why it is not only what endowments do, or what theatre does, or what individuals do, or what corporations or policymakers do. It’s about decision making processes, how we all make our decisions. How do we use this lens when we make those decisions? I think that logic can apply to the smallest decision, like, “Am I going to buy this or am I going to buy that?” and to the biggest decisions. For example, the US Government is considering how to invest $2–$3 trillion in infrastructure over the next six years. Obviously, infrastructure investment is more important than one individual purchase. But underneath it all, the most important question is, what is our decision-making process and what kind of lenses do we apply? And that applies to all categories, including investments.