Tap water & the key issues the Drink Up campaign misses

young girl we love lake erie sign

I wrote another guest post for Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.™ on the Drink Up campaign and the issues it misses. Check it out at their site. Here’s a snippet:

As other contributors have noted on this blog, bottled water carries a host of negative consequences – one of the most important of these involves issues of inequity. Bottled water tends to cost roughly 240 to 10,000 times per gallon than tap water. This occurs despite the fact that roughly one-third of bottled water is simply packaged municipal tap water.

African-American and Hispanic parents are three times more likely to give their children exclusively bottled water, despite this high cost. They report doing this because they perceive it as being cleaner and safer than tap water (the evidence suggests otherwise). The industry has also sought to position its product as a status symbol. Nestle recently introduced “Resource,” a bottled water for women who are “trendy” and “higher-income.”

young girl we love lake erie sign

A participant in DLDT’s WaveMaker program holds a sign celebrating Lake Erie as part of the World Water Day 2012 celebration (courtesy of Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.)

Additionally, the piece got picked up by EcoWatch, a leading grassroots environmental news organization that is based in Cleveland. Thanks to Stefanie Spear from EcoWatch for helping to spread the piece around.

Celebrating World Water Week & supporting Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.

Ugandan child collecting water
Ugandan child collecting water

A child at the Family Spirit AIDS orphanage collects water from a gravity-fed system installed by Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc.

I’ve been doing some work with Drink Local. Drink Tap., Inc., a Cleveland-based NGO that focuses on promoting clean water both locally and in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The organization focuses on inspiring “individuals to recognize and solve our water issues through creative education, events, and providing safe water access for people in need” through education & awareness raising, advocacy, and service.

In order to commemorate World Water Week and 2013, which is the International Year for Water Cooperation, I wrote a guest blog post for DLDT on how water can be a tool for peacebuilding, cooperation, and cross-cultural understanding.

I would encourage you to check it out and support their work. If you are based in Cleveland, they are hosting a beach clean-up at Edgewater Park tomorrow from 10am-12pm, with a party hosted by Barefoot Wine & Bubbly afterwards. Otherwise, you can make a financial contribution to support their work in Northeast Ohio or in Uganda.

Beginning in December, DLDT’s founder and Executive Director Erin Huber will travel to Uganda to help provide clean water to children living in an home for orphans of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. To figure out how you can support DLDT’s work, visit their site.

The next time the Plain Dealer writes about climate change, maybe it should interview an actual scientist

On July 23, Plain Dealer reporter and editor Cliff Pinckard published an article titled “A ‘pause’ in global warming keeps the climate-change debate in play.” As you can probably guess from the title, the post – which purported to report on recent research regarding the so-called “warming plateau” – ended up turning into a flawed, irresponsible piece that misrepresented climate science and gave climate deniers disproportionate footing and credibility.

The piece begins with a brief discussion of a recent series of three reports released by the Met Office Hadley Centre on the recent “pause” in global warming during the last 15 years. It is accurate to say that global surface temperatures have not increased at as rapid a rate since 1998 as they did in the previous 30 years. As the first of the three Met Office reports (PDF) notes, “Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.”

Climate deniers routinely use 1998 as the year to begin making their patently absurd claim that the Earth has been cooling over the past 15 years. This decision is strategic, as an abnormally active El Niño event that year led to a massive transfer of heat from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Since this point, the Pacific Ocean has largely remained in a neutral state, though a moderate La Niña period in the past few years has contributed to a moderate cooling trend in the region. Additionally, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record. According to the World Meteorological Organization (PDF), 9 of the years from 2000-2010 were among the 10 warmest in recorded history, with 2010 and 2005 ranking first and second, respectively.

Decadal global average surface air temperatures for each 10-year period since 1891. As the chart illustrates, the period from 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record, with a temperature anomaly of 0.84°C above the mean (courtesy of the WMO).

Decadal global average surface air temperatures for each 10-year period since 1891. As the chart illustrates, the period from 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record, with a temperature anomaly of 0.84°C above the mean (courtesy of the WMO).

It is important to note, as Mr. Pinckard does briefly, that the Met Office and other climate scientists have attributed this purported “pause” in warming to a variety of potential causes, particularly the trapping of heat in the deep oceans. The first report continues:

Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the heat content of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 1022J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012), equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer. To put this into context, if the same energy had warmed the lower 10km of the atmosphere, it would have warmed by 36°C! While this will not happen, it does illustrate the importance of the ocean as a heat store.

The vast majority of global warming is stored in the oceans, particularly below 700 meters, due to sheer size of the oceans, compared to land area, and the ability of water to trap and store heat (courtesy of Skeptical Science).

The vast majority of global warming is stored in the oceans, particularly below 700 meters, due to sheer size of the oceans, compared to land area, and the ability of water to trap and store heat (courtesy of Skeptical Science).

Had Mr. Pinckard stopped there, his article would have been relatively accurate and innocuous. But instead, he ventured into false equivalence land, feeling the irrepressible need to provide “balance” by quoting climate deniers. James Fallows, who has spent far too much of his outstanding career at The Atlantic reporting on the media’s penchant for false equivalence, has settled on its definition:

False equivalence, the definition (courtesy of James Fallows & @natpkguy).

False equivalence, the definition (courtesy of James Fallows & @natpkguy).

Mr. Pinckard devotes the next 329 words of his article – 36.4% of the whole piece! – to quoting at length from professional climate denier/right wing columnist Rupert Darwall (who has no background in climate science) and someone named Nirav Kothari writing on a random Indian financial site. I’m not sure how these two gentlemen warrant mentioning or quoting at length, but actual climate scientists are shut out of the piece. Perhaps Mr. Picknard can elaborate.

Even more disturbingly, Mr. Pinckard grants equal footing to the claims of these deniers. He argues in both the piece’s headline and the caption under its sole picture that the Met Office’s work means the “the climate-change debate is in play” and that “some people [are] wondering if man-made emissions really have an impact on the environment.”

Mr. Pinckard’s decision to use a complex debate within the climate science community as a reason to launch these patently false and absurd claims is highly irresponsible, if not journalistic malpractice.

There is no debate within the scientific community as whether or not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions “have an impact on the environment.” Svante Arrenhius first discovered that greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, could alter the heat budget of the atmosphere and lead to global warming in 1895.

We know for a fact that  greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are increasing the heat-trapping potential of the atmosphere. Based on evidence from tree rings and ice cores, we know that the average concentrate of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Holocene, the mild and fair geological age in which human civilization has developed, stood at a fairly stead 280ppm. This changed with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and C02 concentrations have spiked by more than 40%, reaching 400ppm in May for the first time in at least 3,000,000 years.

Historical concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, as measured over the last 800,000 years. As the chart suggests, the historical measure stayed at or below 280ppm throughout this period, but the number spiked rapidly after 1850 (courtesy of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography).

Historical concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, as measured over the last 800,000 years. As the chart suggests, the historical measure stayed at or below 280ppm throughout this period, but the number spiked rapidly within the last 200 years (courtesy of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography).

During this period, the atmosphere has begun trapping an additional 1.6 watts per square meter of heat every second, equivalent to the amount of energy stored in four Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs.

We know that the warming has primarily been caused by increasing concentrations of CO2 and, to a lesser extent, other heat-trapping gases like methane and nitrous oxide. Scientists are able to determine this by measuring the wavelengths of long-wave infrared radiation as it reaches the ground and as it leaves the Earth. Sure enough, the mass spectrometers show spikes in radiation levels grouped around CO2 and other known greenhouse gases.

Spectrum measurements of the various wavelengths of greenhouse gas radiation at the surface of the Earth, drawn from Evans (2006). As the chart shows, the overwhelming majority of radiation falls within the spectrum of CO2, with significant contributions from CH4 (methane), O3 (ozone), and N2O (nitrous oxide), all of which are known greenhouse gases (courtesy of Skeptical Science).

Spectrum measurements of the various wavelengths of greenhouse gas radiation at the surface of the Earth. The overwhelming majority of radiation falls within the spectrum of CO2, with significant contributions from methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide, all of which are known greenhouse gases (courtesy of Skeptical Science).

Moreover, had Mr. Pinckard bothered to actually read the reports from the Met Office, he might have discovered that a decade or two of relatively flat temperatures has been predicted by climate models.

[T]he results show that a pause of 10 years’ duration is likely to occur due to internal fluctuations about twice every century.

The third Met Office report (PDF) also notes that the recent pause will not continue for long and will have almost no impact on the long-term trends in warming. The authors conclude first that “the physical basis of climate models and the projections they produce have not been invalidated by the recent pause.” Additionally, they argue “the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of dangerous climate change.”

Mr. Pinckard fails to provide this important context to his readers or offer the additional evidence, besides average land surface temperatures, that global warming has continued apace. It is called global warming, not land warming, for a reason.

The next time that The Plain Dealer wants to cover an issue involving our global climate, which is easily one of the most complex and misunderstood topics in the world, I would suggest their reporter(s) do the following:

    • Go to Google and type the following: site:skepticalscience.com climate-related search term.
    • Watch the following video from NASA for further proof that, yes, the planet is warming

On the shores of Lake Erie, where the children are above average & the sand is made of plastic

Over the weekend, I participated in a beach cleanup along Lake Erie at Perkins Beach in Edgewater State Park. The event was organized by Drink Local. Drink Tap., a local non-profit organization focusing on water issues in Northeast Ohio and globally.

Councilman Matt Zone (far right) and two volunteers flank me from the cleanup effort at Perkins Beach on Saturday, July 6 (courtesy of Drink Local. Drink Tap.).

Councilman Matt Zone (far right) and two volunteers flank me from the cleanup effort at Perkins Beach on Saturday, July 6 (courtesy of Drink Local. Drink Tap.).

Unsurprisingly – particularly given that the event took place just two days after the 4th of July – the beach was strewn with a variety of litter and debris. I lost count on the number of cigarette butts and cigar tips that I picked up after I reached triple digits. Overall, the organizers reported that the other volunteers and I cleaned up 357.9 pounds of trash and 134.9 pounds of recyclable materials. Unfortunately, this effort did not even begin to make a dent in the problem; by the end, it had begun to feel like a Sisyphean task.

But while most of the other volunteers focused on the large and unusual items we found – including two discarded tires – I was particularly discouraged by the prevalence of small pieces of plastic and styrofoam. These tiny particles of plastic pollution, known as microplastic, are the real threat to the health of Lake Erie’s ecosystem.

Last fall, the 5 Gyres Institute and the State University of New York released a study on the problem of plastic pollution in the Great Lakes. The research provided the first comprehensive plastic pollution survey of the lakes, and it represents an important baseline against which we can measure progress or, God forbid, further regression.

According to the survey, the researchers primarily found high concentrations of this microplastic, which is a piece of plastic debris less than 5 millimeters in diameter. According to the researchers,

One sample drawn near the border of Lake Erie’s central and eastern basins yielded 600,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometer — twice the number found in the most contaminated oceanic sample on record, Mason said.

A second sample in Lake Erie yielded 450,000 plastic pieces, while the average sample across the three lakes studied yielded about 8,000 plastic pieces.

Microplastic litter comes from a variety of sources, including the breaking down of larger pieces of plastic by the elements; this was the primary source of the plastic and styrofoam pieces that I found littering Perkins Beach. I’m only slightly exaggerating when I say that, in some areas, these pieces of plastic had become almost as numerous as the grains of sand. They are clearly an integral part of the beach at this point.

Concentrations of plastic pollution in the Great Lakes. As the map illustrates, concentrations are highest in Lake Erie, which is the shallowest of the five lakes (courtesy of 5 Gyres Institute).

Concentrations of plastic pollution in the Great Lakes. As the map illustrates, concentrations are highest in Lake Erie, which is the shallowest of the five lakes (courtesy of 5 Gyres Institute).

However, another key source of microplastic are conventional cosmetics and personal cleaning supplies, many of which contain small, abrasive plastic pellets. These pellets serve as exfoliates, and they have become increasingly popular in recent years. Because these plastic pieces are frequently used in the presence of water, i.e. in the shower, they readily enter our watercourses and end up in the lake.

Microplastic pollution littering the shores of Lake Erie on Wendy Island on July 20, 2013.

Microplastic pollution littering the shores of Lake Erie on Wendy Island on July 20, 2013.

Because it is so small and can be easily ingested by aquatic life and waterfowl, microplastic poses a major threat to the health of aquatic ecosystems like Lake Erie. It can leach chemicals into the bodies of these aquatic organisms and clearly bioaccumulates overtime. Furthermore, some evidence suggests that, if and when people consume animals that have ingested microplastic, the chemicals contained in the particles can leach into our systems as well (Thank God I’m a vegetarian…).

It’s important to note that, because the plastic pollution in Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes is far smaller than that in ocean garbage patches, like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and is therefore nowhere no as big of an issue by volume. Yet, the concentration of this plastic debris is, in many instances, far greater than the average concentration of plastic in ocean gyres.

Microplastic pollution is yet another major environmental challenge we have created that threatens the health of Northeast Ohio’s most important natural resource. All in the name of vanity. As Solomon said in the Book of Ecclesiastes,

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Surely the Earth will abide and last far longer than humanity. But we are consciously and unconsciously altering it in countless ways, mostly for the worse.

Comment to the State Department opposing Keystone XL

I have just (finally) submitted my comment to the State Department, urging it to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. I encourage anyone reading this post to submit your own comment to the State Department by 5:00pm today. You can find more information and talking points from 350.org, which is pushing for 1,000,000 public comments. You can email comments to keystonecomments@state.gov.

Join the effort to submit 1,000,000 comments against Keystone XL (courtesy of 350.org).

Join the effort to submit 1,000,000 comments against Keystone XL (courtesy of 350.org).

Here is the text of my comment; feel free to borrow from it liberally:

State Department Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues:

I would like to make it clear that I firmly oppose the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project and am certain that it does not fulfill a national interest. Moreover, the State Department’s own Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) undermines the case which you have made in favor of the pipeline. I would like to highlight just a few of the problematic claims which your office has made during this review process.

First, the SEIS claims that, in the absence of a the Keystone XL pipeline, tar sands companies operating in Alberta will merely deliver the oil which they extract to or through the United States via other means, principally rail. However, the evidence clearly indicates that this alternative is neither economically nor logistically feasible. The SEIS assumes that it costs $15.50 per barrel to deliver tar sands oil to the Gulf of Mexico for refining; yet, the current price for delivering this double that estimate – $31 per barrel. This fact alone obviates your cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, the current rail infrastructure cannot support the expansion of Alberta’s tar sands industry that Keystone XL would facilitate. Less than 4% of Canadian oil entered the US on rail in 2011. I fail to understand how you project that the existing rail infrastructure – or that which may exist in the near future – can possibly pick up the slack to carry the remaining 96.7% of Canadian crude oil that needs refining.

Secondly, your study grievously downplays the threat that Keystone XL spills pose to the inland waterways. As recent spills in Minnesota (by rail, mind you), Arkansas, and Kalamazoo have demonstrated, tar sands present a clear and present danger to air and water quality throughout America. Two years after the largest inland oil spill in American history, the Kalamazoo River has not fully recovered. ExxonMobil has failed to adequately address the crisis its pipeline crated in Mayflower, Arkansas, and it has effectively taken control of this suburban town for its own devices. We already know that TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline has leaked at least 20 times since it began operating in 2011. Any one of these spills would become vastly more severe if it occurred from the proposed XL pipeline. Tar sands oil does not float, like normal crude. Instead, it sinks and becomes mixed with sediment, making it nearly impossible to clean up properly in the case of a spill. Furthermore, every time water or wind disrupts that sunken bitumen, it can release into the water, creating ever newer ecological disasters. The EPA recently noted that more than 50% of America’s waterways are in poor shape for human use. Keystone XL threatens to exacerbate this challenge further.

Thirdly, the SEIS makes the odd claim that Keystone XL is of little consequence for climate change. Yet, a comprehensive report released last week shows that the pipeline would carry 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, roughly equal to the carbon potential 51 coal-fired power plants. Imagine making the argument that building 51 new coal-fired power plants would be in the national interest. This statement is absurd on its face. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. US EPA that if the government determines carbon dioxide constitutes a hazardous material, it is obligated to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. I fail to see how building 51 new coal plants or approving a pipeline that meets the same end fits within the confines of this endangerment ruling.

Fourthly, the SEIS claims Keystone XL is in the national interest, as it reduces dependence on oil from Middle Eastern sources. Yet, the very market analysis included in your report suggests that most of the tar sands oil that would travel through the pipeline is destined for export to other countries, particularly the emerging economies of East Asia. How exactly does facilitating the export of oil from Canada to China, in order to benefit a handful of tar sands companies, benefit the American people?

Lastly, your SEIS began from the assumption that Keystone XL would secure approval, then justified its way to this predetermined outcome. This approach violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the National Environmental Protection Act. Your job, as a reviewing agency, is to weigh the benefits and costs of the proposed project and determine whether or not it is in the national interest. This review process failed to meet that essential criterion, undermining any findings which it may have produced. In addition, the State Department apparently tried to hide the fact that the consultants who completed the SEIS have business dealings with TransCanada and may have a financial interest in seeing this pipeline come to fruition, as a result.

Ultimately, the State Department’s own analysis belies the conclusion that Keystone XL stands in the national interest. If the US is committed to fighting the existential threat posed by climate change, as President Obama has eloquently stated, it must stop making decades-long investments in large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure projects. Now is the time to act on climate change, and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline is a first step toward this end. I urge the State Department to reconsider its stance and recommend that President Obama reject the project. Twenty years from now, we will all be accountable for the consequences of our actions. It is time for the US government to stand on the right side of history and commit itself to tackling the climate crisis.


Tim Kovach

MA Candidate, Global Environmental Policy

American University School of International Service

Recent conference presentations

UPDATE: April 22 at 1:51pm

As I mention below in the original post, the organizers of the JIS & GSC Spring Research Symposium on Human Security and Development made an audio recording of the presentations. Here is the audio from my presentation:

Additionally, if you’d like to hear the other excellent research presented at the conference, you can visit the Journal of International Service‘s YouTube page.


As noted in a previous post, I recently delivered presentations at two research conferences for graduate students in the Washington, DC area.

Last Friday, 3/22, I delivered the findings from my paper, Breaking the Conflict Trap: On the Factors Contributing to Civil War Recurrenceto the 2nd annual Graduate Student Research Conference at George Mason’s School of Public Policy. A copy of my presentation is available below:

Last evening, I presented the preliminary findings from my Masters thesis research at the Journal of International Service & Graduate Student Conference’s Spring Research Symposium, which focused on human security & development. My presentation, titled “Disasters as Conflict Triggers: A New Framework for Analysis in Conflict-Affected & Post-Conflict States,” focused on my work analyzing the linkages between disasters and conflict in fragile settings. It includes a case study of conflict dynamics of the international response to the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake in Pakistan. A copy of my presentation is below. I will also upload the audio from the presentation as soon as it is available.

Upcoming conference presentations

I will be presenting at two upcoming conferences for DC-area graduate students later this month.

March 22, I will present my paper, Breaking the Conflict Trap: On the Factors Contributing to Civil War Recurrence, at the 2nd annual Graduate Student Research Conference at George Mason University.

Map of the affected areas & epicenter of the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake. Courtesy of the BBC.

Map of the affected areas & epicenter of the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake. Courtesy of the BBC.

The following Tuesday, March 26, I will present initial details from my current research project, Where DDR Meets DRR, at the Graduate Research Symposium, sponsored by the Journal of International Service and the AU SIS Graduate Student Council.

My presentation will focus the theoretical framework that I have developed, which explains a set of potential pathways linking disasters to conflict in conflict-affected states. Additionally, I will present preliminary evidence of the conflict dynamics of the international response effort to the 2005 Pakistan Earthquake. This work will form the basis of the capstone research for my Master’s program.

I will upload the Powerpoints for each presentation to this site after I have completed them.

The benefits of going green for small businesses

The following is a post that I wrote as a guest blogger for greenmarketing.tv in July 2010.

Cross-posted from greenmarketing.tv:

For the majority of small businesses, the business case for sustainable and energy efficiency just isn’t strong enough to make any real investments. Most articles and analysis discuss how going green can help a business reduce its energy costs and improve its brand recognition and popularity. However, it can be difficult for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to sign off on projects that have projected payback periods of three years when they are concerned about having cash on hand three months now.

If one focuses entirely on these more obvious benefits of sustainability, it can make it difficult to believe that we will reach a tipping point on small business sustainability anytime soon. However, there are a number of added benefits to sustainability and energy efficiency that are often overlooked but that can help SMEs reap tangible, short-term dividends on their investments. These include improved productivity, a decrease in lost time to sick days, and being better equipped to recruit talented employees.

Several studies have shown that energy efficient upgrades and sustainable building practices can improve employee productivity significantly. According to a 2003 study from the Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon, taking steps to improve indoor air quality and installing energy efficient lighting both have strong positive effects on productivity. Enabling workers to control air temperature at their workstations increased their productivity anywhere from 3.5-36.6%. By installing high-efficiency lighting fixtures, businesses can experience a 3-13.2% increase in worker productivity. Taking advantage of natural light also has its benefits. The report notes that utilizing daylighting can improve productivity 3-18% and even increase sales by as much as 40%. Taken together, these numbers can represent a considerable advantage for any small business, especially considering that the EPA estimates that even a 1% increase in the productivity of office workers is enough to offset the costs of such upgrades.

A second major benefit of sustainability and energy efficiency comes from the added value of countering what is commonly known as Sick Building Syndrome.” Many businesses work in facilities that were not built in a sustainable manner. They have poor ventilation, lack access to natural light, and contain equipment and materials that release large amounts of volatile organic compound (VOCs). All of this can take a serious toll on the health and well being of employees, as indoor air quality leads to a number of health issues. Fortunately, green buildings go a long way towards mitigating these issues, providing businesses with considerable added value in the process. According to a 2009 article in the Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, green buildings produce an average financial benefit of $37-55 per square foot of facility space for businesses. This is due to the face that better indoor air quality improves productivity by 6-9% and reduces sick days by 2.88 days annually, per worker. The average value added to a business per worker is $6,432.

Third, sustainable businesses are better equipped to recruit the best employees. A recent study from Johnson Controls provides strong evidence that Generation Y is highly concerned about the environment and expects employers to become more sustainable. Ninety-six percent of Generation Y respondents said they want their employer to be environmentally friendly or at least environmentally aware, and large percentages — 47.4% and 47%, respectively — would like to see water saving features and solar panels on site. But it’s not just Gen Y workers who are increasing their commitment to sustainability in the workplace. The study noted that 98% of 26-35 year old respondents want their employers to be environmentally friendly or aware. This suggests that SMEs ignore sustainability at their own risk, particularly in this time of economic uncertainty.

I recognize that many SMEs still struggle to find a convincing argument to make the move towards sustainability. But going green is not some altruistic move that SMEs should make just because of personal beliefs or commitments — it is a smart business decision that will make them more competitive in the long run, one that they may not be able to afford to pass up.

Welcome to My Site

View of the Swiss Alps from the Chateau Gruyere

View of the Swiss Alps from the Chateau Gruyere

After a surprisingly arduous process, I have completed my site; welcome. It was nice to brush off my HTML skills and customize this site. I had forgotten how complex anchor tags could be. I hope this site will provide a medium for me to interact with and gain insight from people interested in my research and posts, allow me to communicate my work and thoughts effectively, and enable me to engage with relevant organizations working on these issues. I look forward to hearing from potential readers.