Last week, three women had the courage to stand up and speak their minds about environmental policy. Held at Washington State University, the student body government, ASWSU, sponsored an event deemed appropriately ‘Middle Ground’ with the purpose of developing understanding between students of differing opinions.
The women that participated in this discussion were from diverse backgrounds and different majors, which provided diversity among the speakers as the panel was composed of three women and 5 men. Those that participated volunteered themselves and their opinions as tribute to be critiqued by their peers in hopes to have their voices heard at the collegiate level when responding to the following questions.
Should Pullman ban plastic straws?
All students on the panel voted ‘no’ regarding this issue. Students voiced that the university should tackle its larger plastic problems first, such as the waste resulting from disposable plastic water bottles. One of the women on the board, who is majoring in environmental science at WSU, commented that in the present moment there is no tangible alternative material available to consumers that would cut costs or aid in natural resource preservation. This sentiment was echoed by all others on the board.
Do humans have a tangible effect on the environment?
All students on the panel voted ‘yes’ to this question. Another woman on the board, who was an out-of -state student from California, commented on the increased dryness and temperature during the summers over the last five years, and related human effect on the California environment to pollution and recent droughts.
Agree or disagree with the following statement: Pollution is necessary for economic growth.
This statement split the opinions of our women panelists evenly in half, as one did not feel that enough information was provided to make an informed judgement.
Supporting the statement, it was mentioned that the byproducts of industry are necessary for a first-world lifestyle that manufactures items such as clothes, microchips, buildings, etc. The panelist of women supporting this side also felt that there are currently policies in place to minimize the waste produced by industry, so the economy was therefore justified in its current practice.
On the side opposing this argument, our panelist of women stated that other countries are consciously choosing to implicate sources of power in their economies that are not pollutant to the environment. A historic perspective was also argued, stating that people have been able to thrive for thousands of years with little environmental impact. A consensus was reached among panelists that consumers of future generations would want green energy, and so the industry would find a way to make it.
The opinions of the women that took part in this discussion filled a role crucial to a well-rounded perspective. There is benefits to all if women actively take part in the future of their world.