Green Technology in the Higher Education Classroom

Green Technology in the Higher Education Classroom
Miracle or Nightmare

By: Robert Miller

Higher education is going green; this is one of them most common heard buzzwords in college planning committees. (Frey, 2006) The green concept seems to be both politically and environmentally correct in today’s culture.
But what does this mean to the colleges who must meet this new demand on a system already strapped in today’s tough economic times. The goal is simply enough in theory, but is very complicated in reality. Colleges have to meet governmental regulatory demands to provide basic infrastructures, while integrating environmentally friendly technology and methods into available facilities and processes.

This will require green technology integration across all areas of the college campus and create additional administrative demands to include green concepts in all decisions for the college in order meet societal demands, and current and future stringent environmental regulations. (Frey, 2006) The colleges will have to reduce their carbon footprint (a modern term which equates the total of all resources used to create a product from concept to disposal or in layman terms from cradle to death) in order to comply with proposed future regulation. This integration has begun with the introduction and use of new technology in the classroom. (Nightingale, 2010)

The incorporation of technology in the classroom has had a large effect on the classrooms contribution to going green. Many current green concepts in higher education are currently being used in today’s classrooms. Some, such as the development of distance education technology went green as an added benefit

The smart board was initially created to serve as an interactive learning and presentation tool. The effect on green technology of the smart board is the reduction in the number of paper handouts which must be given to students. The smart board does have a carbon footprint of its own and the carbon footprint information is not disclosed in available literature. However the use of one of the commonly available carbon footprint calculators will yield approximate values.
Results for the smart board values were yielded by: “The Carbon Footprint Calculator” available at , the calculator estimates that the typical smart board has a CO2 footprint of approximately 3.2 kilograms.

Distant education reduces the numbers of students on campus which reduces the demands on the infrastructure of the college and has resulted in the creation of its own green tool. This new green tool is the E-Book - an electronic book downloaded and posted within the course documents for the course. This can eliminate the need for a printed textbook which has the potential to reduce the’ carbon footprint of a college significantly.(Sarah Axon, 2009)


Most do not realize the carbon footprint required to put a college textbook into a classroom. The creation of a book involves the necessity of millions of dollars in investment and equipment to grow and harvest timber, the destruction of the environment in collecting and processing raw materials and finally the release of toxic emissions through in the processes of manufacturing, printing and delivery to the final user and then eventually the landfill. (US. EPA, 2006). This does not take into account the countless energy and other resources consumed during the research and writing of the material to be used in the book. When one considers the number of text books used on a campus in one year, the use of electronic texts would foster a significant reduction in the overall footprint of the college (Sarah Axon, 2009)

Technological advances are quickly altering the traditional view and role of the classroom and virtual technology will become much more prominent in future educational systems. However, this is not a method without flaws; current technology has been helpful in reducing the classrooms’ carbon footprint, however the incorporation of such technology results in a larger overall carbon footprint when you begin to calculate all the impacts due to the cradle to grave requirements necessary for the production of the technologies and the energy top operate them. (US EPA, 2006)

Works Cited
Nightingale, J. (2010, may 4). classroom inovation. Retrieved september 20, 2010, from www.guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/classroom-innovation/problem-solution-schools-cut-ict-spending/print

FREY, C. (2006, August 23). Seattle PI. (L. ©1996-2010 Hearst Seattle Media, Editor) Retrieved October 9, 2010, from seattlepi.coml: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/282232_greencampus23.html

U.S. EPA, 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, EPA530-R-06-004

Sarah Axon. (2009). carbon reduction and e-learning. Epic Performance Inc.

Export Control and Its Effect on Higher Education

by Rebecca Miro

An academic institution’s mission includes information dissemination, which runs counter to the restrictions imposed by export controls. Although most university research is fundamental research -- basic and applied research whose results are published and shared broadly within the scientific community – and therefore exempt from export controls, there are instances when federal agencies include restrictions in research contracts, making it subject to export control regulations. However, the export control regulations system shows serious flaws whose ramifications impact universities in many ways.

Export Control describes laws and regulations whose intent is to protect national security and intelligence by controlling the export of “oral, written, electronic or visual disclosure, shipment, transfer or transmission of commodities, technology, information, technical data, assistance or software codes” (Various Federal Agencies, n.d.). The export can be to anyone outside of the United States, including a U.S. citizen, or to a non-U.S. citizen or entity within the U.S. The latter is called a deemed export (P. Laflin, personal communication, April 2010).

The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) regulate dual-use items, those which can have both commercial and military purposes. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) regulate articles with military or defense applications. While the EAR and ITAR were enacted prior to September 11, 2001, the events of that day renewed the focus to enforce these laws (Various Federal agencies, n.d.), in an effort to prevent our military and commercial intelligence from falling into enemy hands.

However, in a 2007 report, the Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC) noted numerous shortcomings of the current system. For example, some items on the controlled list are now available freely anywhere. These shortcomings point to an outdated system that needs serious revamping.

Federal agencies are including the term “sensitive but unclassified” in contracts in order to exact control on basic research (Monastersky, 2007). It appears that this broad classification is an attempt to ensure that nothing falls through the cracks. Unfortunately, this causes ambiguity, forcing university administrators to devote added time to interpreting, clarifying, and negotiating contract clauses. This is a financial ramification of the confusing export control situation, as universities cannot recover costs of these administrative functions via overhead (F&A) accounts, as Tarantino (2008) noted.

However, export control regulations are not to be taken lightly since federal agencies are monitoring more closely. In what’s become a landmark case for export control, former University of Tennessee Professor J. Reece Roth was sent to prison for circumventing the deemed export restriction (Monastersky, 2008).

Universities find their ability to collaborate in cutting-edge research with academic and industry partners hampered when those partners cannot agree to restrictions included in contracts from federal agencies. Similarly, onerous export control laws dissuade international scientists from collaborating with American researchers, causing “reverse brain drain.” Foreign scientists will simply collaborate with other countries if the policies for collaborating with U.S. scientists are too burdensome, noted Dr. Frank Tarantino when he addressed the Congressional Export Control Working Group (Tarantino, 2008, p. 4). He went on to explain that countries find other international partners with whom to develop cutting-edge research. Such a situation harms the national security and intelligence that these laws were created to protect since the U.S. will then not be privy to the latest technology.

Further complicating matters are deemed exports, where foreign nationals in the U. S. cannot work with certain information. According to National Science Foundation, the graduation rate of engineers who are U.S. citizens has actually declined by 20 percent over the last two decades, and two thirds of the Ph.D.s in engineering granted by U.S. universities are now awarded to non-citizens (DEAC, 2007). If there are not enough American-born graduates interested in science and engineering, then students interested in these disciplines must come from abroad. Otherwise, research and development in American universities would be unable to continue.
In response to the concerns raised, on August 30, 2010 President Obama announced an initiative to ease some of the current restrictions (“Obama plans,” 2010). Any committee convened for this purpose must include university representatives to present academia’s case. The revised system must be current, streamlined, efficient, and effective. Speaking from experience, most faculty are leery of regulations that they perceive as hindering their research efforts. An expeditious process will help to alleviate the feeling of imposed bureaucracy.

In conclusion, export controls serve an important purpose. In the increasingly globalized marketplace, even the most stringent laws will not prevent our enemies from obtaining our intellectual data. As the DEAC reported, if the information sought cannot be obtained from the United States, “they will simply be obtained from others” (DEAC, 2007, p.15). If this is the case, then it is imperative that the U.S. government devise policies and methods that will protect the country’s interests without jeopardizing our competitiveness in research and development.

References

Basken, P. (2008). Panel faults restrictions on sensitive research. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(18), A25.

Blum, C. (2009). International issues from the Capital view. NCURA Magazine, XLI(4), 2-3. Retrieved from http://www.ncura.edu

Deemed Export Advisory Committee (2007). The deemed export rule in the era of globalization: Submitted to the Secretary of Commerce. Retrieved from http://tac.bis.doc.gov/2007/deacreport.pdf

Monastersky, R. (2007). Ease security limits on research, panel says. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(10), A9.

Monastersky, R. (2008). Professor’s conviction on export violations alerts U.S. universities. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Professors-Conviction-on-E/114015/

Obama plans to ease restrictions on sensitive exports. (2010, August 30). Chronicle of Higher Education, The Ticker. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Obama-Plans-to-Ease/26590

Tarantino, F. (2008). The impact of export controls on non-profit and university R&D efforts: Briefing for the congressional export control working group. Retrieved from http://www.usra.edu/galleries/ipc_files/itar.pdf

Various Federal agencies. (n.d.). Restrictive troublesome clauses impacting export compliance [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.ncuraregioniii.com/2008/May2008/C13.ppt