WRTG 3020: Environmental Writing — Spring 2011
Sections 42 and 51
Dr. Rebecca Dickson
Section 42: MW 3:00-4:15, Hellems 193
Phone: 303/735-4908
Mailbox: Environmental Design Room 1B62
Office: Environmental Design 1B76
Section 51: MW 4:30-5:45, Duane G1B39
Office hours: Thur. 11:30-2:30 and by appt.
Email: rebecca.dickson@colorado.edu
COURSE OVERVIEW
In this class we will work on developing your writing and communication skills while adding to your rhetorical knowledge. We
will investigate the choices speakers and writers make and build on your ability to comprehend and write various forms of
academic writing. Our topic for the semester is environmental sustainability: we’ll look at some of the rhetoric involved with
environmentalism and consider sustainability issues from various perspectives. You’ll see several documentaries and you’ll read
a number of essays on environmental concerns. You’ll write six papers for a grade with multiple drafts of each; I will also ask
you to do free writings in which you reflect on the ideas of the course and your own writing and learning process. Through the
readings and assignments, you’ll get an idea of
the range and possibilities of professional
writing while absorbing the vast consequences
associated with environmental sustainability.
You will be engaging with your colleagues and
me regularly, and you’ll frequently do reading
quizzes and worksheets on basic writing
conventions.
CORE AND OTHER CRITERIA
This course fulfills the Arts and Sciences core
curriculum for written communication at CUBoulder. This course also addresses the key
criteria for an upper-division core course as
specified by the Colorado Commission on
Higher Education (CCHE) and by the
Program for Writing and Rhetoric (PWR).
Rhetorical Knowledge: In this course, we will
review and develop your understanding of the
power and prevalence of rhetoric. Being
rhetorically savvy is useful, for we encounter
rhetorical situations and strategies every day in
what we hear, read, and see (movies, TV,
Internet). And we use rhetorical approaches
all the time, even if we don’t know it. As we’ll discover, examining environmental issues is a particularly effective way of
understanding the purpose and power of rhetoric. We’ll also consider various forms of academic writing and writers’ rhetorical
choices. We’ll be using three highly regarded Web sites to better understand rhetoric: Silva Rhetoricae, the Purdue University
OWL, and the Writing@CSU.
Writing Process. This course offers one of your last opportunities while in college to work intensively on your communication
skills and get substantive feedback on your writing from others. By now, you know that good writing requires more than a
single draft; it requires thought and revision and, if possible, input from others. Good writing also requires that you
understand the rhetorical situation in any writing task. We’ll also consider the abundant writing resources now available
through multiple technologies: print, film, the Internet, etc.
Critical Thinking: Reading, analysis, and discussion develop and exercise your critical thinking abilities. Thus we’ll be reading
and examining complex issues and considering these issues from multiple points of view. You’ll work on discerning the
difference between thoughtful responses and kneejerk reactions, criticism from critique, discourse from ranting, and more.
1
Conventions. You’ll write various types of academic essays for this course (summary, rhetorical analysis, literature review, grant
proposal, and narrative). As you write these papers, we’ll consider the conventions, grammatical and stylistic, of upper-level
academic writing.
Effective Communication: Our goal overall is to understand different approaches and possibilities when it comes to writing and
speaking, academic and otherwise. At the same time, easy readability and comprehensible meaning are vital, whether you’re
writing an email or putting together a press release or giving a presentation before your boss. We’ll work on how to make your
writing negotiable and clear, whatever type of writing or speaking you’re doing.
TEXTS
1) Brooke Rollins and Lee Bauknight, eds., Green,(2010)
2) Diana Hacker, A Writer's Reference (Bedford Press, 6th edition)
3) Articles on CULearn
4) Rhetoric Web sites: writing@CSU (http://writing.colostate.edu/index.cfm); Silva Rhetoricae (http://rhetoric.byu.edu/); the
Purdue OWL (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/)
FILMS
We’ll rhetorically analyze three documentaries this semester. We’ll watch two films in class: Ramin Bahrani’s Plastic Bag (2009)
and Aaron Woolf’s King Corn (2007). We’ll also analyze Robert Kenner’s Food, Inc. (2008) You are required to see all the films.
WORK and GRADING BREAKDOWN
Film summary
Film rhetorical analysis
How My Future Looks: A Conversation with an Environmentalist project
Literature review
Grant proposal
Narrative-synthesis paper service learning
presentation on readings—lead discussion
attendance at service learning event
reading quizzes, grammar worksheets, and in-class writings
critiques of your colleagues' papers and general participation
attendance
TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE:
5
15
15
8
22
10
2
3
10 (averaged)
5
5 (see attendance policy below)
100 points
GENERAL COURSE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Attendance: If you don’t attend class regularly, you won’t get much from the course and you’ll likely get a disappointing
grade. You also are a contributor to the class—your colleagues and I benefit from your presence. So I have an attendance
policy: each absence after 3 ABSENCES will drop your attendance score. If you miss 6 times, you will receive a zero for
attendance. If you miss 7 times or more, you will receive a zero for your participation score as well (meaning you will lose 10
points). If you are absent, you are responsible for finding out what you missed.
The Workshop Format and the Essays You’ll Write
In this class we will often be working collectively on your papers. You must give me at least two versions of an essay for
you to receive a grade on that essay. The only exception to this policy is the narrative on service learning. Please keep
all drafts of your papers, especially those with my comments on them; you or I may want to refer back to them. Every paper
you hand in to me should be typed, double-spaced, and, if necessary, stapled. No title pages, please—save paper when
possible. Feel free to double-side your papers if your printer makes that easy to do.
A writing workshop refers to a group of writers who come together to share and receive feedback on each other’s writing.
Workshop participants share ideas in regard to content, rhetorical approach, style, grammatical and punctuation matters, and
more. As you write the assigned essays for this class, you’ll receive feedback from me. You’ll also read other students’ papers
so that you can see the approaches your colleagues are taking to a given assignment. In this way, you’ll learn from each other
as writers and as readers. You will write at least two drafts of each paper.
ON PAPERS TURNED IN FOR A GRADE
Papers are due when they are due. If I do accept your unexcused (undocumented) late paper, your grade will drop
one full letter for each CU class day it is overdue. You will receive a grade only on the final draft of each paper.
2
HEADS UP: This class requires some unique extracurricular work.
Early in the semester, you will need to find a professional who is involved in sustainability issues in some way and interview
that person. You will be creating some project on this person and/or what you learn from this person. Your task will be to
learn what your future might look like as you pursue your own sustainability interests, given your major. Examples of a
professional involved in sustainability: a researcher investigating climate change at NCAR, a professor researching global
petroleum supplies at CU’s engineering school, the head of an environmental group, the city of Boulder’s environmental
officer, a federal government employee looking at resource management or doing GIS projects, etc. There are many of such
people in the Boulder area. Find this person early in the semester and start working on this project ASAP.
Please note that the narrative-synthesis paper is a two-part paper that requires that you engage in an outdoor service learning
project in which you do something physical to help the environment (e.g., plant trees, do erosion control, pull weeds, etc.)
There will be several opportunities this semester to engage in these projects. Please attend one of these or find another
event/activity of interest to you (if I don’t suggest the event to the class, run your idea for this activity past me for approval).
At the end of the semester, you’ll write a paper—4-5 pages—on the activity that ideally incorporates some of the issues we
have discussed or read over the course of the semester. Your task in the narrative-synthesis paper is to connect your
extracurricular event to the issues and/or readings we’ve discussed or done for class; you could also connect this experience to
your major and intention to be become professionally involved in a job involving sustainability concerns. You’ll be writing this
paper in close consultation with another writer in the class who will be assigned to you. The paper is due on Friday, April 29th.
Please be looking for events/activities you can do as the semester progresses and share these with the class.
CU POLICIES
Learning Disabilities: If you qualify for accommodations because of a disability, please submit to me a letter from Disability
Services during the first two weeks of the course so that your needs can be addressed. Disability Services determines
accommodations based on documented disabilities. Disability Services' letters for students with disabilities indicate legally
mandated reasonable accommodations. For more information on this: 303-492-8671, Willard 322, and
http://www.Colorado.EDU/disabilityservices.
Religious Holidays
Campus policy regarding religious observances requires that faculty make every effort to deal reasonably and fairly with all
students who, because of religious obligations, have conflicts with scheduled exams, assignments or required attendance. I am
happy to comply with this policy. Please let me know if you will miss class because of a religious observance and we will adjust
your due dates for quizzes and essays accordingly. See full details at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/fac_relig.html.
Classroom Behavior
Students and faculty each have responsibility for maintaining an appropriate learning environment. Those who fail to adhere
to such behavioral standards may be subject to discipline. Professional courtesy and sensitivity are especially important with
respect to individuals and topics dealing with differences of race, culture, religion, politics, sexual orientation, gender, gender
variance, and nationalities.
Electronics: Because the various electronic gadgets that most of us regularly use can be very distracting, please leave your cell
phones, pagers, laptops, and other devices with flashing images and disruptive noises stowed in your bag and turned off from
the moment class begins until it ends. If you do occasionally use your laptop in class (for taking notes or looking up something
for the class), please do not check out your email or non-class related Web sites. And again, please keep your cell phones
stowed at all times. Even a quick glance at your latest text message or email account is rude and disruptive. We are a small class
and little actions like that will be noticed by many and thus could derail the flow of class activities.
See policies at http://www.colorado.edu/policies/classbehavior.html and at
http://www.colorado.edu/studentaffairs/judicialaffairs/code.html#student_code
Discrimination and Harassment
The University of Colorado at Boulder policy on Discrimination and Harassment, the University of Colorado policy on Sexual
Harassment and the University of Colorado policy on Amorous Relationships apply to all students, staff and faculty. Any
student, staff or faculty member who believes s/he has been the subject of sexual harassment or discrimination or harassment
based upon race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status should contact
the Office of Discrimination and Harassment (ODH) at 303-492-2127 or the Office of Judicial Affairs at 303-492-5550.
Information about the ODH, the above referenced policies and the campus resources available to assist individuals regarding
discrimination or harassment can be obtained at http://www.colorado.edu/odh
3
Academic Honesty and CU’s Honor Code
All students of the University of Colorado at Boulder are responsible for knowing and adhering to the academic integrity
policy of this institution. Violations of this policy may include cheating, plagiarism, aid of academic dishonesty, fabrication,
lying, bribery, and threatening behavior. All incidents of academic misconduct shall be reported to the Honor Code Council
(honor@colorado.edu; 303/735-2273). Students who are found to be in violation of the academic integrity policy will be
subject to both academic sanctions from the faculty member and non-academic sanctions (including but not limited to
university probation, suspension, or expulsion). Other information on the Honor Code can be found at
http://www.colorado.edu/policies/honor.html and at http://www.colorado.edu/academics/honorcode/.
The policy for cheating and plagiarism in this course: If I discover that you have plagiarized any part of a paper, you will
receive an F for that paper. If 50 percent or more of a paper is plagiarized (e.g., an essay downloaded from the Web or if
somebody else writes half or more of your paper for you, for pay or for free), you will flunk the course. I use online plagiarism
search engines to detect cheating, and I will report all cheaters, whether they flunk the course or not, to CU’s Honor Code
Council. We will discuss cheating and plagiarism in class. If you miss any of these discussions, please see me.
MORE INFORMATION ON THE COURSE
Sustainability, Environmental Conservation, Human Health, and Rhetoric
It is easy to see how the first three items in the list above—“sustainability,” “environmental conservation,” and “human
health”—are interrelated. But rhetoric may not appear to fit there. “Rhetoric” is a word with myriad meanings that at first
seem difficult to grasp. As Gideon Burton, on his Web site “Silva Rhetoricae,” puts it, “Rhetoric is the study of effective
speaking and writing. And the art of persuasion. And many other things.” Burton is spot on—rhetoric involves many things. It
has a history of some 2500 years, reaching back to the age of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Though the word has a negative
connotation (e.g., “that’s mere rhetoric!”), it also has many positive meanings. As a means to study communication methods, it
has been a centerpiece of education for more than two millennia.
As you likely learned in your first-year writing course here at CU, in a basic sense a study of rhetoric concerns a study of
communication methods that are spoken or written or recorded in some way. There is a “what” that a piece of writing or
communication conveys—this refers to what is being said, the content. But there is also a “how” to any communication.
Rhetorical studies look at how effective a given method of communication is. If you took a first-year writing course here at
CU, you might remember discussions about appeals to one’s audience—you might have learned that when writing
persuasively, one can use an emotional appeal or a logical or fact-based appeal or an authoritative or reputation-based appeal
(pathos, logos, and ethos). In your first-year class, you likely investigated the needs and expectations of different audiences
and considered those issues as you wrote your papers.
In this upper-level sustainability-based course, we’ll be examining rhetoric from a more particular perspective—we’ll examine
some big rhetorics at work. Let’s start with some basics about our environment. As far as humanity currently knows, there is
only one fit place in the universe for human beings to live, and we call it Earth. Even if there are multiple planets where we
could live, any of those planets are impossibly far away given humanity’s current technology. So we have one home, and yet, as
any Environmental Studies major knows, we humans are not kind to our Earth. Most animals understand the importance of
not fouling their nests, but many humans have forgotten this. Seventy percent of Americans say that they are concerned about
the health of the environment, and yet year after year we pollute and poison and destroy habitat on our finite planet. And even
though we know—personally, viscerally, and scientifically—that our world is getting hotter, year after year climate change
legislation does not happen in any meaningful way nationally or internationally. Why? In part because some very powerful
entities are using rhetoric to block change, and this rhetoric is so smart and effective that to many environmentalists, it feels as
though we are running in place.
There is no better way to understand and analyze the power of rhetoric than by looking at the reams of print and ads and
Internet sites and media reports in regard to sustainability issues. King Coal and King Oil and King Corn prevail, year after
year, even though we know the dangers and drawbacks of each. And every American is dependent on these industries to some
degree. This is no small issue. Fossil fuels are so central to the American and global economies that it’s easy for the fossil fuel
industries to rhetorically attack any attack on fossil fuels. Thus the conversation in regard to global energy is big on rhetoric.
Rhetoric involves efforts at persuasion, and sometimes a rhetoric can be very successful. When it is, rhetoric can become a
vital part of enculturation. Consider these sayings, each created by an advertising company working for a large corporation:
“You deserve a break today.” “Supersize me.” “Where’s the beef?” “It’s the real thing.” Another example: we all expect that
gasoline will be cheap in the US and it should be that way, right? And each of knows how to drive and we all know that your car
4
is a symbol of your personal success. Who taught us this? Our parents, our movies, our TV shows, our TV ads, our politicians,
our bosses and corporate CEOs, our teachers, our traditions, our national documents, our grandparents, our friends, our
neighbors. The importance of cars in America is something we just know, and we’ve known it since we were toddlers. That’s a
mark of a powerful rhetoric: when you can’t pinpoint how you “know” something that everyone around you “knows” as well,
likely some powerful cultural rhetoric is at work. (Among other things—cars are also convenient, useful things).
When the world’s leading nation and largest economy and number two carbon emitter must face up to practices that are not in
the long term sustainable, environmentally or economically, the conversation is going to become heated. In this class we will
not evaluate whether one side on the sustainability debate is right or wrong. Our goal instead is to examine this rhetoric and its
effectiveness and write about it in an informed way. Another goal is to help prepare you for the writing and communication
you’ll be doing as an environmental professional.
So we’ll be examining big rhetorics (pro and anti-texts on environmental concerns) and smaller rhetorics (methods of
communicating in our readings and in your papers). On top of this, we’ll work on writing conventions and organization and
style. Please be aware that I may ask you to read other articles or to do worksheets, writings, or quizzes that are not listed
below; I may also ask you to buy a text not listed here. Please note: quiz dates will be announced in class and quizzes will be
given at the beginning of class—you cannot take them at another time without an awfully good excuse.
THE MAJOR TEXTS WE’LL READ
Green (2010) Various writings and cartoons by environmentalists and others. We’ll be readings articles by E.O. Wilson, Rachel
Carson, Naomi Klein, Alan Weisman, and others.
Readings available at CULearn:
Elizabeth Kolbert, “Unconventional Crude”
Michael Pollan, “Power Steer”
Michael Pollan, “Unhappy Meals”
Richard Manning, “The Oil We Eat”
James Fallows, “Dirty Coal, Clean Future”
ASSIGNMENTS
Presentation and Leading of Discussion on Readings
As we move through our background and critical readings, I would like each of you to lead discussion on a reading. In this
short presentation, you should give us some information on the writer and their influence (if any). You should also lead
discussion of the reading by summarizing its main points and asking relevant questions about it. Some questions to consider
addressing: What issues does the article bring up? What did you learn from it or find particularly interesting? Why do you think
the writer thought the issue worth discussing? Why do you think an editor found it worth publishing? And don’t forget the
rhetorical questions: what is the writer’s rhetorical situation? Who is the writer’s audience? What is the writer’s
approach/appeal to that audience? Did the writing approach work for you? Would it work for mainstream audiences? This
assignment is worth 2 points.
Documentary Summary
Summarizing is to some degree a lost art. But it’s a skill that gets used a lot in the professional workplace. For this short paper,
you will summarize ONE of the documentaries we watch (500 words). The task is to briefly convey the essentials of your
chosen film—you’ll describe what it’s about, its general approach, its thesis, etc. This paper is worth 5 points.
Documentary Rhetorical Analysis
In this paper, you’ll consider the way one of the films works rhetorically. You can consider one small piece of the film (even a
one-minute segment is chock-full of material and purpose) or a larger section of the film, but you should not try to address all
that the film addresses. Each of these documentaries covers a lot of territory and uses multiple rhetorical techniques, so pick a
doable topic. Typically, students need 5-6 pages to write a cogent analysis of one of these films. This paper is worth 15 points.
How My Future Looks: A Conversation with an Environmentalist project
For this paper, you’ll approach a professional involved in sustainability issues in some way. You’ll interview this person, then
put together a project on what you discover while relating it to your future intentions and plans. You have a broad range of
possibilities with this project—you can write a paper, create a video of some sort, do a web page, etc. You will work closely
with a several partners on this project. This project is worth 15 points.
5
Literature Review
For this paper, you’ll pick a sustainability topic of interest to you and investigate and report on the research associated with it
in detail. You should choose your topic early in the semester so you can get started collecting your research for the lit review.
We will review research methods using the Web as you write this paper. Your literature review should be related to your grant
proposal topic (see below). This paper is worth 8 points.
Grant Proposal
For this paper, you will find an actual grant to apply for, either local on campus or state-wide or national. Ideally, you’ll actually
be applying for this grant, or perhaps you want a practice run before applying for the same grant in the future. In any case, this
should be based around an issue you care about and see yourself perhaps pursuing at a later date. You should choose this grant
proposal early in the semester so you can be preparing for it and gathering research all semester. This paper is worth 22 points.
Narrative-Synthesis Paper and Service Learning event.
As juniors and seniors, you are soon going to graduate and join the work world, where you’ll be far away from your writing
coach (me); you’ll also leave behind your other professors and advisors. This assignment is meant to help prepare you for this
imminent reality. This paper also serves as a final exam of sorts as you will have less time to work on it and will receive less
feedback from Dr. D. Your mission: you are to attend or engage in a service learning outdoor activity. Once you’ve done this,
you and an assigned partner will brainstorm how you might approach the paper. You’ll work together to assess your rhetorical
situation (which is complex—more on this below), potential rhetorical appeals, and what strategy would serve you best.
What does “synthesis” mean in regard to this paper? Over the course of the semester, we will discuss sustainability issues and
some rhetorics related to them. You’ll also meet with a professional who is involved with sustainability issues in one way or
another. Once you’ve done all this, ask yourself this: is there a thread that brings some of this together for you? What unique
observations can you make on sustainability, the rhetorics related to this huge topic, and/or your future, given what you’ve
learned from your service learning activity and other efforts this semester?
On the last day of class, you’ll hand the synthesis paper in to your partner. Your partner will grade your paper, and you will
grade your partner as a writing coach. On Friday, April 20th, you’ll hand both the paper you graded and your evaluation of your
partner into me—you’ll leave all this in my mailbox in Env. Design 1B62. I will read and evaluate all papers, and I’ll evaluate
your evaluations. (This all will make a lot more sense when we get to this paper.) These papers usually require 5-6 pages to do
thoroughly and creatively. The paper is worth 10 points, 5 points from your partner, 5 points from Dr. D. The service learning
event attendance is required and is worth 3 points.
6
SEMESTER CALENDAR
1/10 introduction to the course and sustainability concerns
1/12 more introduction; first essay assignment; watch Ramin Bahrani’s Plastic Bag
1/14 Friday: Viewing of The 11th Hour (noon) and Food, Inc. (2:30) in TB01 room 211
----------------------1/17 Martin Luther King day—no class
1/18 Tuesday: Viewing of Food, Inc. (11:00) and The 11th Hour (1:30) in TB01 room 211
1/19 watch and discuss first half of King Corn; quiz on and discussion of E.O. Wilson’s “For the Love of Life”
----------------------By this week, you should be looking into finding an environmental professional to talk to and shape a project/paper around.
1/24 Watch and discuss second half of King Corn; quiz & discussion of Peter Maass, “The Breaking Point”
1/26 quiz on films; discuss films; how to write a summary; sample writing
----------------------By this week, you should have an appointment set with your environmental professional.
1/31 SUMMARY DRAFT DUE—2 copies; workshop summary; focusing the mind and plagiarism discussion
2/2
workshop summaries; quiz & discussion of Elizabeth Kolbert’s “Unconventional Crude”
----------------------By this week, you need to have a grant proposal project in mind. You should also be thinking about your lit review.
2/7
SUMMARY DUE; close analysis assignment; grammar quiz
2/9
quiz & discussion of James Fallows’ “Dirty Coal, Clean Future”; green and greenwashing ads by various entities
2/10 Thursday: rhetorical analysis draft due on Google Docs or in my mailbox or via email
----------------------By this week, you should have met with your environmental professional.
2/14 rhetorical analysis workshop; quiz & discussion of Naomi Klein, “A Hole in the World”
2/16 rhetorical analysis workshop; Revising Prose; wordiness and style exercises
----------------------2/21 DOCUMENTARY RHETORICAL ANALYSIS DUE; discuss How My Future Looks assignment
2/23 quiz & discussion of Richard Manning, “The Food We Eat”
----------------------2/28 DRAFT OF MY FUTURE PAPER DUE; quiz & discussion of Michael Pollan, “Power Steer”
3/2
my future paper workshop; rhetorical analysis of various Web sites
----------------------3/7
workshop revised My Future papers; quiz & discussion of Michael Pollan, “Unhappy Meals”
3/9
workshop; grant proposal description due
----------------------3/14 workshop; quiz & discussion of Bruce Watson, “Sounding the Alarm” & Rachel Carson, “The Obligation to Endure”
3/16 HOW MY FUTURE LOOKS project due
----------------------3/21-3/25
SPRING BREAK
----------------------3/28 grant proposals; quiz & discussion of Colin Beavin, “Life After the Year Without Toilet Paper”
3/30 grant proposals drafts due
----------------------4/4
small group appointments—grant proposals (group 1); excerpts from “As the World Burns” (graphic novel)
4/6
small group appointments—grant proposals (group 2); excerpts from “As the World Burns” (graphic novel)
----------------------4/11 grant proposals workshop; quiz & discussion of Anne Marie Todd, “Prime-Time Subversion: The
Environmental Rhetoric of the Simpsons”
4/13 GRANT PROPOSALS and LIT REVIEWS DUE
----------------------4/18 service learning, the environment, and me; quiz & discussion of Alan Weisman, “Earth Without People”
4/20 narrative-synopsis paper workshop
----------------------4/25 narrative-synopsis paper workshop
4/27 NARRATIVE-SYNOPSIS PAPER DUE to your partner; class wrap-up
4/29 NARRATIVE-SYNOPSIS PAPER & EVALUATIONS DUE to Dr. D, in my mailbox in Env. Design 1B62
7
Environmental professionals/people who’ve worked hard on sustainability I know:
1. Lisa Morzel geologist works at Yellowstone; on Boulder City Council
2. Macon Cowles—environmental attorney; on Boulder City Council
3. Julie Caron—researcher former girlfriend Karen does education on sustainability issues
4. Leslie Glustrom—head of clean energy action
5. Joshua Rushhaupt (degree in Geography from CU & director of CU-Sinapu)—head of Rocky Mountain chapter of
Sierra Club
6. Kirk Cunningham volunteer activist for Sierra Club for decades
7. Ed Self (Wildlands Restoration Volunteers)
8. Pat Shanks? Geochemist works at Yellowstone
9. Susan LeFever former head of RMC
10. Suzanne Jones—Wilderness Society
11. Steve Smith—Wilderness Society
12. Elise Jones—Colorado Environmental Coalition
13. Will Toor
14. Ben Pearlman?
15. Roger Singer
16. Adriana Raudzens
17. Dave Newport
18. Bill Ikler (James Peak initiative)
19. Alice Madden
20. Claire Levy
21. Jack Pommer
22. Ken Regelson
23. Steve Bauhs
24. Bob Junke
25. Mike Chiropolus
26. KC Becker
27. Pete Maysmith (director of Colorado Conservation Voters)
28. Jonah Fruchter
29. Wendy Keefover-Ring
30. Rob (works with Wendy)
31. Jacob Smith (mayor of Golden)
32. Mark Ruzzin
33. Kai Abelkis
34. Anne Livingston—Sustainablity Director for Boulder County
35. David Driscoll—city of Boulder’s head of planning and development
36. David Cook—head of parking at CU
37. Eric Huber—environmental lawyer for Sierra Club (went to CU; majored in Geography)
38. Matt Garrington with Environment Colorado
39. Deirdre Butler—Wildlife Chair with Sierra Club
40. Sam Fitch
41. Other profs on campus
42. Michael Brownlee
43. Steven Saunders (head of Colorado Climate)
44. Al Bartlett
45. Linda Jourgenson
46. Ruth Wright
47. Tom Plant
48. Matt Appelbaum
49. Andy Schultheiss
50. Crystal Gray
8