Engagement | Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment | Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation

Pesticides, Pollinators, and Sustainable Agriculture: A Q&A with Scott McArt

Pesticide use is integral to modern-day farming, but it has carried unintended consequences. Research shows pesticides have caused steep declines in the populations of bees and other pollinators vital to agriculture, as well as possible links to cancer and other diseases.

The 2026 iSEE Critical Conversation, “Balancing the Intended and Unintended Effects of Managing Pests,” is scheduled for March 5-6 at the Illini Center in Chicago. The two-day event will bring together scientists, farmers, beekeepers, and industry and nonprofit leaders to encourage dialogue and find solutions to this complex challenge.

The public portion of the event is a March 5 keynote address by Scott McArt, Associate Professor of Pollinator Health at Cornell University.

McArt started his career as a chemical ecologist, studying the chemistry that influences interactions among different organisms – in his case, the natural toxins in plants that make them inedible to predators. About 15 years ago, he shifted his work to explore the impact of unnatural toxins – pesticides – on organisms and how that contributes to biodiversity loss. While other toxicologists had documented their harmful effects, McArt wanted to know exactly which pesticides bees and other pollinators are being exposed to, and at what levels, to better understand the risks and pinpoint solutions. Through his appointment with Cornell Cooperative Extension, McArt also works directly with beekeepers, farmers, and regulatory agencies to improve pollinator conservation and health.

In this Q&A, McArt explains the challenges posed by pesticides and the work he and others have done to address them. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

This year’s iSEE Critical Conversation will focus on the effects of pesticide use. Why is this a timely topic right now?

I would say the reason we are talking about this is that we’re in a global biodiversity crisis. There are species that are being impacted by the things that we do. And agriculture happens to be one of those major things, and pesticides happen to be one of the stresses in agriculture that is contributing to biodiversity loss.

How do you benefit people but also benefit the environment? There is a constant tension between those two things as the global population gets to the point where we’re having significant impacts on the land and the various animals that live on that land.

Pesticides are used to improve yields by controlling pests that are harmful to crops. Are their benefits overstated?

With current agricultural practices, how we set up modern farming, we are absolutely reliant on pesticides. If we didn’t have pesticides, we would experience yield losses, there’s no question about that. But maybe we’re not doing agriculture in a way that is actually sustainable. Maybe we’re doing agriculture in a way that is overly reliant on pesticides.

I will be talking about some examples where, in certain contexts, we can show very conclusively that we are overusing some pesticides. The risks outweigh the benefits. In other application contexts, we can’t show that. The benefits are really clear, and there might be risks, but then the issue becomes: If we are going to get rid of something, we’re going to lose a major benefit, even though we might be harming wildlife in the process. That becomes less of a biological question and more of a social question or even an economic question. That’s why I think this interdisciplinary workshop is really necessary for this particular topic.

What are the unintended effects of pesticide use on pollinators and other wildlife? What are the biggest risks they pose? Are some of those difficult to measure?

Our lab does a lot of risk assessment for pollinators. There’s no perfect way of doing risk assessment, but what we can say is that there are problems with pesticides. They are directly linked to declines of many species in our country, including pollinators – that’s not just bees, but butterflies, moths, and other species of pollinators. And it’s not just pollinators – it’s a lot of other things, especially insects, but frogs and other species as well. We know pesticides have a long-term negative impact on many of these species, and they are a contributor to biodiversity loss. So clearly we are using pesticides in a way that, if the goal of the risk assessment and pesticide registration process is to minimize those nontarget effects, well, we’re failing.

Can you give an example of the specific impact, especially on bees?

McArt examines a bee colony with undergraduates in a summer research program in 2019. Credit: Delanie Sickler

Last year, honeybee colony losses in the United States were at 56%. That is the highest honeybee colony loss rate in recorded history. This year, some of the early reports we’re getting from commercial beekeepers are just as troubling. So will it be 56% again? I don’t know, but that is unsustainable. Beekeepers are going out of business because they can’t sustain that level of losses year after year.

Are pesticides driving all of those losses? Absolutely not. There are other factors that also play a role. But pesticides are definitely playing a role.

For wild pollinators, based on the most recent science, we know that the use of two types of pesticides in particular, neonicotinoids and pyrethroids, are the strongest predictor of wild bee declines in the United States. This was from a Nature paper last year, which put lots of different factors into a really impressive analysis. Over and over, for the past decade or so now that we’re starting to get large-scale studies like this, we’re seeing that pesticides are, if not the major driver, one of the major drivers of insect declines in the U.S., and globally.

Why is it important for growers to consider these unintended effects? What are the costs to our environment, the agricultural economy, and our food supply?

If you’re an environmentalist, any loss of species is disheartening to you. But not everybody is an environmentalist. Other people might say, OK, if using pesticides is necessary for my livelihood, what’s the problem with losing a species or two? Or, more likely, they may have no idea that pesticides are causing large-scale environmental problems. I think that’s again a social issue that needs to be navigated.

From an economic perspective, we know a lot of insects play major roles not only in the functioning of natural systems, but also in the functioning of farms. So if you’re in pollination agriculture, and you have half the number of bees in your orchard, you have half the amount of pollination occurring; therefore, yield may go down in those crops. If you’re in corn and soybeans, yield might not actually change all that much – maybe in soybeans because they’re pollination-dependent to some extent, but corn pretty much is wind-pollinated.

What about all the soil microorganisms – all of the beetles and the various things that live in the soil? If you wipe them out, nutrient cycling goes away. Soil fertility declines. Alternatively, if we wipe out the predators of the pests, there might actually be a pest outbreak.

The other axis is probably the one that resonates with most people: human health effects. A recent study from Iowa shows cancer rates going up quite a bit in that state, and it seems to be tracking with pesticide use. So is that the driver? We don’t really know. But if more and more pesticides are being used, and you’re getting more cancers, more Alzheimer’s, and other human diseases, it could potentially be playing a role. I would say that’s much less abstract to most people. Some people may like bees, while others may have absolutely no idea what a pollinator is. But every single person understands cancer in their own child or in themselves.

What specific topics will you be addressing in your keynote?

I’m a biologist, and I do a lot of risk assessment. In the past 10 years or so I’ve become sort of a closet sociologist, because no progress can be made on this topic by only considering biology. I also collaborate with economists in almost every single thing that we do now, because when people are making decisions about pesticides, oftentimes economics has to be considered. Navigating that complex biological, social, and economic landscape to try and figure out how we make these agricultural systems sustainable, how we define sustainability and then also come to some agreement to make things sustainable – it’s not easy, as you might expect.

I’ll be giving a few different stories of ways that we have been successful in navigating things. One is with a new law restricting pesticides that’s now been implemented in New York, as a direct result of the work we’ve done – not just me, but a lot of other people who contributed as well.

Another story I’ll talk about is something that’s been much more industry-driven: how a commercial apple company initiated a successful reduced-spray pesticide program. It is not only benefiting pollinators but looks like it’s benefiting the growers as well – something that’s not the heavy hand of government but is driven by private industry, the sellers of the apples that are grown by farmers.

The third story I’ll share is something that is actually driven by the stakeholders themselves: beekeepers who want to understand how pesticides are playing a role in colony losses throughout the United States. Bees are exposed to myriad pesticides in the environment, which isn’t good of course. But beekeepers also use pesticides to control parasites in their colonies. One of the major issues the beekeeping industry is facing right now is that they themselves are overusing one particular pesticide. When they do that, the parasites evolve resistance to the pesticide, and unfortunately, they end up doing more harm than good. So we’ve worked with many beekeepers to stop using that pesticide exclusively, to instead use cultural controls, rotations with other pesticides, and other integrated pest management tactics. The parasites don’t develop resistance as quickly, and the beekeepers are able to control them more effectively.

Can you say more about the effort to pass the 2025 New York law that restricts the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds and its impact?

McArt testifies to the New York State Assembly about proposed pesticide legislation in September 2021. Credit: Julie Suarez

We have this new law in New York state because, honestly, we did a lot of background work to try and get all these groups together, similar to what you’re doing with iSEE. There’s now a new law in Vermont that mimics the New York law; Massachusetts is considering it, Pennsylvania is considering it, and Colorado is considering it. And I was just out in Minnesota, our first Midwestern state, where we had a full day-long workshop that is very similar to what iSEE is putting together. Minnesota is now considering trying to mimic what we’ve done here in New York. The only way to make that successful is to have these really difficult conversations with a lot of different stakeholders at the table, and people with various expertise. There was a lot of enthusiasm, even from the pesticide companies and seed distributors, after that discussion, because everyone felt heard.

People have very strong opinions on the topic of pesticides. And often you’re not going to change anyone’s mind. But you can facilitate a conversation, and you can make people feel heard. In the places that I’ve gone, oftentimes that’s the first step to going a bit further.

Do you see shifting attitudes toward pesticides among farmers and others in the agricultural community as a result of your work?

I’ve been working with apple growers for about 10 years now. No farmer wants to kill bees, and all the growers that I interact with are very receptive to learning more about pesticides, because they want to have good pollination. But they also want to have good pest control. So it’s a constant balance they have to navigate: good pest control, but not overdoing it and killing all the bees, because then they won’t have apples.

More recently, the topic of neonic seed treatments has been at the forefront. That involves talking to corn and soybean growers. There are almost zero corn and soybean growers who feel like they rely on pollinators, so the dynamic and knowledge base is different from that of apple growers. A lot of people just have absolutely no idea that these seed treatments are harming pollinators. That said, I think we’ve seen a major cultural change in New York. Seven years ago, I think it’s safe to say that most field crop farmers did not appreciate me bringing up this topic. Now, not only do we have a new law banning the seed treatments because of the impact on pollinators, but a lot of farmers are buying into it. Perhaps more importantly, they had no idea there were almost no economic benefits from using seed treatments.

Do your studies show that neonic seed treatments don’t do much good? Are the benefits oversold?

In that particular application context, which happens to be the major use of neonicotinoid insecticides in the entire world, including in Illinois, they have extremely infrequent benefits. We estimate that somewhere between 93 to 94 percent of farmers are losing money from using them.

The reason why seed treatments were thought to be so good is that they let you greatly reduce the amount of pesticide that’s applied on a field. Instead of blanket spraying, you can put just a little bit of pesticide on a seed, and then the seeds are protected. So on a field-by-field basis, it could be considered a good thing. But the problem is overuse. We suspect that somewhere between 90 and 100 percent of corn fields in the United States and the majority of soybeans are planted with neonicotinoid seed treatments.

Neonics are also by far the most toxic insecticides to most insects – about an order of magnitude more toxic than any other insecticide. So even though we’ve been using about the same amount of insecticides over the past 20 years on a pound-by-pound basis in the U.S., by using more and more neonics, we’ve made the environment about 10 times more toxic to insects – which is probably why we’re noticing that direct relationship between neonic use and declines in pollinators.

One reason farmers use neonics is that they consider them inexpensive crop insurance. They might only have pests 5 to 6 percent of the time, but the seed treatments provide protection in that very rare chance of a major pest outbreak. But when every single person does that, it becomes the tragedy of the commons.

How can researchers work with farmers/growers to help them understand the impact of pesticide use and maybe change their management practices?

Number one, listen. Researchers and scientists are very good at talking, but we’re not as good at listening. If you’re a scientist who’s reading this, listen to farmers. You might just learn something.

Also, be a service, be a resource for that person.

And third, just be humble. I see a lot of interactions with farmers where maybe the scientist has listened, maybe they’ve provided some data, but they’re not really humble. They kind of come off as some egghead from an ivory tower. That’s a great way to lose a productive dialogue, to lose trust. If we’re going to work together to solve big issues – and sustainable pesticide use in agriculture is absolutely a big, complex issue – well, it turns out working together requires trust. So be humble and earn that trust. Those are my three keys.

– Article by iSEE Communications Specialist Julie Wurth

Environmental Solutions that make Economic Sense: Q&A with Korneel Rabaey

The 2025 iSEE Congress, “A Circular Bioeconomy as a Path to Net-Zero” is fast approaching! Scheduled to take place September 25-26, 2025, this free public event will feature panel discussions on sustainable food, biofuels, plastics, and carbon reduction strategies from academic and industry research experts, including a keynote address from Korneel Rabaey.

Rabaey is professor in the Department of Biotechnology at Ghent University, as well as honorary professor at The University of Queensland. He is one of the founders and the present Chief Technology Officer of CAPTURE, a center focusing on resource recovery in the fields of Water, Carbon Capture and Utilization and Plastics to Resource. In addition, he is also the founder of HYDROHM, a company focusing on electrification in the water sector. His main research efforts focus on resource recovery from wastewater and CO₂ streams from industry.

iSEE Communications Intern Anjali Yedavalli spoke with Rabaey about his research and the future of a circular bioeconomy. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Our Congress theme this year is a “circular bioeconomy,” which is a new term for many people. How would you define this term, and why do you feel it’s an important and timely topic right now?

“Circular bioeconomy” is a term that refers to a biomass- and bioconversion-based economy where we can use microorganisms to supply our products, and also to recover resources. It’s extremely broad, from setting up a way for the wastewater treatment plant to recover phosphorus, to taking waste biomass and making new polymers. We call it a “bioeconomy” because it’s not just a set of processes; it’s a contributor to the economy at large. And increasingly, you see that these biomass- and bioconversion-based processes make a lot of economic sense.

You say the term itself is broad. What specific parts of it are causing a lot of buzz or excitement?

I think there’s currently a lot of interest in finding novel, more sustainable approaches to supply food. Sustainably and economically producing protein plays a key role in that.

And a second large theme that people are excited about is bioplastics, including bio-based plastics, and biodegradable plastics. On the one hand, of course, there are issues caused by waste plastics in the environment. On the other hand, there is a necessity to make a supply of novel plastics more sustainable.

Why should policymakers, economists, and scientists be interested in a circular bioeconomy?

From a policymaker perspective, there’s a big need to update our regulatory frameworks. One of the issues in our current frameworks is that many resources are considered waste. And if you produce something from waste, the legislation says that the product is also waste. You can make the nicest plastic from waste biomass, and it’s technically still classified as waste. Working on these so-called end-of-waste regulations is critical.

And more generally, the bio-based economy is noteworthy because it interacts with supply chains. One of the reasons we are producing novel forms of protein is that, for example, if you have to feed salmon for our consumption, about half of what you feed to salmon is wild caught fish. They just grind it up and provide it as a so-called fish meal. And so we are depleting stocks in the ocean by catching fish that will be fed to other fish. Perhaps instead, we could produce novel sources of protein to feed the salmon. But, you need to optimize these technologies and strategies so they can be economically viable.

One of the aspects of a circular bioeconomy that you study is resource recovery. What does this term refer to?

Resource recovery refers to the way we recover something from a source that is considered “waste.” And the simplest example is recovering water from wastewater. Wastewater is about 99.5% water and 0.5% of a not-so-nice thing. So recovering the water is a massive resource that you can get back.

What emerging challenges or opportunities do you see shaping your field in the next 5 to 10 years?

In terms of general opportunities, I think we’re at a phase where, in the next 5 to 10 years, we want to put into practice the technologies and methodologies we’ve been researching so far. But to do that, we really need to think of the societal transition necessary to implement a bio-based economy. In order to have a societal transition, having the technology is only one of the necessary ingredients.

People will wonder, “Is it economic? Is it better for the environment? Is it socially acceptable?” These are very important questions. We need to inform people about bioproducts and find ways to get their buy-in. And this is a difficult task.

I’ll give an example in the context of microbial proteins. So we’re specialized in “side streams,” which are the leftover materials generated during food processing that are not the primary product. We grow organisms on these side streams, and they’re very protein-rich. You can use this protein to help supplement human nutrition. And you might say, “Let’s just make hamburgers from this microbial protein.” However, in my opinion, that’s a bad idea. Hamburgers made from microbial protein will be new and different, and many people will be hesitant to accept them.

How do you get the rest of the population on board? Well, microbial protein has great environmental benefits – it saves an enormous amount of water and greenhouse gas emissions. So you might propose, “If I replace 10% of that beef hamburger you’re eating with this microbial protein, you will not taste or see the difference, but we’ve made 10% of it more sustainable.” These approaches make it a lot easier to reach that societal transition and acceptance.

What do you hope attendees take away from your upcoming keynote address at the iSEE Congress?

My keynote will emphasize that microbial protein can be produced from carbon dioxide derived building blocks, allowing for high volumes of protein production, which would be very economical. The use of this protein is not limited to food or feed; it is also an attractive option for producing plastics.

What advice would you give to students who want to follow a similar path or make an impact in your field?

Dare to think far ahead to determine which process or technology will make a true difference, and do this based on calculations that don’t start from the premise that everything will be very cheap in the future. It won’t be. Then determine what you can contribute along this path and who you need to work with.

I work now partially at a university and partially in two startup companies. But before doing a Ph.D. and further studying, I had a lot of doubts about what I was doing and where I was going. Whatever decision you make, you cannot turn it back, but you can change what you’re doing in the present. If you find you’re not doing what you like, then do something else.

‘My Agrivoltaic Farm’ Game: Learning, Fun, and Sustainability — All in One

Imagine a lesson on agriculture and sustainability packaged in vibrant colors, pixelated fields, and charming animations. Creators of the new educational agrivoltaics app, My Agrivoltaic Farm, available for download on iOS and Android, have accomplished just that.

The Sustainably Colocating Agricultural and Photovoltaic Electricity Systems (SCAPES) Project sports an interdisciplinary team of experts in agriculture and engineering who explore the use of cropland as a source of both solar energy and food production. The “agrivoltaics” project, led by iSEE Director Madhu Khanna, ACES DIstinguished Professor of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, aims to increase the amount of sustainable energy and crops produced in these fields.

To complement this real-world research, the SCAPES Education Team set out to create an app that teaches players of all ages about the interconnectedness of agriculture and sustainability.

When players step into the charming, pixelated landscape of My Agrivoltaic Farm, they are greeted with a field of opportunities. Starting in their small grid-like Arizona farm, players gradually expand their plot into a full-fledged agrivoltaic farm, complete with solar panels, tractors, sprinklers, other technologies, and a variety of crops. With a shop available for every necessary piece of equipment and crop they would need — and a list of quests that unlock valuable rewards — the world of My Agrivoltaic Farm will keep players coming back for more.

Games like FarmVille, Harvest Moon, and Stardew Valley are known for their relaxing gameplay and aesthetics, drawing a wide audience into gamified farming. For many players, these games are entertaining because they are strategy-focused, using realistic simulations of weather patterns and agriculture to encourage the player to explore — and to fail. SCAPES educational researchers and game developers at Balance Studios collaborated to uphold this pivotal theme in My Agrivoltaic Farm.

“We want people to experiment and learn about the range of impacts adding solar panels to farmland can have. And sometimes that means making sub-optimal decisions,” said H. Chad Lane, the SCAPES educational research lead and Associate Professor of Computer Science and Educational Psychology at the U of I. “Some kids go full tilt with just one crop because they think it’s fun. Some are like, ‘What if I stopped doing crops and only did solar panels?’ They realize that it works, but someone who’s doing both is progressing way faster in the game than you are, and they are learning which crops love the additional shade and how the solar panels benefit from the cooling effects of the crops underneath.”

An additional goal for the app’s creators is to reinvent the perception of farmers and agriculture for audiences.

“I don’t know what your mental image of a farmer is, but in reality, it’s not what we were taught as kids growing up,” said Scott Tuinstra, Associate Creative Director from Balance Studios who collaborated on developing the app. “Farmers are using drones, they’re using AI, they’re using robotics. They’re taking a lot of measurements to see how crops are responding to different things.”

The SCAPES Education Team prioritized a healthy balance between the science of the gameplay and its effectiveness in teaching audiences about agrivoltaics.

“I’ve seen scientists committed to precision and accuracy, so they make it as realistic as possible, but that doesn’t always make sense educationally,” Lane said. “For example, soil quality is a huge deal in agriculture. But we don’t model that in the game because we needed to put our limited resources into the most educationally important features, such as teaching the relationship between solar panels and crops.”

However, the developers pushed for certain details to be included, especially if they pertained to important themes in agrivoltaics.

“The weather patterns in the game, for example, are all geographically realistic,” Lane said. “They cover a wide range, and they affect the underlying simulation that drives the game. If it’s cloudy, the solar panels don’t do as well. If it rains, you don’t have to water your crops as often. You might water and then it rains, and then you’ve overwatered. So all of these things affect the results and make the game more engaging at the same time.”

Although the game does not simulate soil composition, it does simulate soil moisture. Players can watch the soil turn different hues as they water crops. Once their plot gets large enough, they can even purchase a sprinkler system to increase efficiency.

“I love watching the sprinkler work. You have to work hard to unlock that feature, and it is extremely satisfying to watch,” Lane said. “I smile every time I see it go off.”

A list of unique features makes My Agrivoltaic Farm stand out in a sea of educational games. For example, the art style of the app, akin to its simulation gameplay predecessors, such as FarmVille and Clash of Clans, is a favorite for the developers.

“I like the art style,” said Heidi Klessig, Vice President of Client Relations at Balance Studios. “I think that the look and feel of the crops are fun and engaging, and there’s enough detail to be interesting. I think that the visual look and feel of it resonates with the age that we’re trying to hit,”

The SCAPES team is conducting educational research on the app, testing kids’ knowledge of agrivoltaics concepts in conjunction with the time they spend playing the game.

“We’re conducting research with this game on how to design effective educational technologies,” Lane said. “We want to know about the experience that it creates for someone, what ideas it evokes for them, what questions they have. That’s exciting to me. There are not many high-quality educational games like this out there.”

My Agrivoltaic Farm is available for download on iOS and Android! You can learn more about the features of the app on the SCAPES website.

— Article by iSEE Communications Intern Anjali Yedavalli

iCAP Update: Engaging Our Campus

The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is well past the halfway point from Illinois Climate Action Plan 2020 to iCAP 2025. It’s time to check in on each of the iCAP chapters to gauge progress, address the challenges our campus faces, and celebrate some achievements. This month, iSEE Communications Intern Gabe Lareau examines the Engagement chapter to see what the university is doing to immerse campus in a culture of sustainability. He also recaps the progress and challenges as we begin the drafting process for iCAP 2025 — which will mark 25 years (or hopefully less) until campus reaches carbon neutrality. View the full series >>>

More than 4,000 students took part in the Spring 2024 “Sustainapalooza” organized by the Student Sustainability Leadership Council and co-hosted by iSEE, the Student Sustainability Committee, Students for Environmental Concerns, and the Illini Union Board. The event featured tabling by sustainability organizations, iSEE’s free clothing swap, a sustainable art show, food, and music. Credits: Diana Gonzaga/iSEE Communications

They may seem like basic questions:

Do you know how composting works?
Are you up to date on what can be recycled, and what can’t?
What do you know about the Illinois Climate Action Plan?

But for taking the pulse of sustainability literacy at the University of Illinois, these questions are vital to see how knowledgeable, up to snuff, and aware the campus actually is. Or, in another word, engaged.

For Codie Sterner, the word is literally in the job description. Appointed last year as Student Affairs’ Coordinator for Student Sustainability and the Engagement iCAP Team Chair, he knew that crafting a sustainability survey for university staff was of “exponential importance” early on. The Education Team is preparing a similar survey for incoming students.

According to Sterner, there’s a knowledge gap on campus: “There’s been a ton of interest with sustainability literacy. We’ve been getting questions like, ‘Hey, we would love to know what to do to make this a green event, but we actually don’t know what to do.’ ”

The sustainability literacy survey for university staff, due to be released soon, is just one of the main successes in the engagement realm. Others — successfully working with the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA) to join the Green Sports Alliance, increasing the number of Green Events certifications, and making regular updates to the iCAP Portal website — have been paramount to fulfilling the team’s iCAP 2020 objectives.

But, as with every other iCAP chapter’s objectives list, challenges still lie ahead. Most for the Engagement Team revolve around one fact: With a university as large and diverse as Illinois, the team is still trying to tailor messaging to as much of campus as possible.

Part of that process has been a heavier focus on some objectives over others and, in some cases, a complete restructuring. Take for example Objectives 7.4 and 7.5, respectively: using GivePulse — a volunteer, engagement, and fundraising service — to bolster campus-community collaboration on sustainability issues; and holding an annual Youth Sustainability Summit as part of a broader effort to teach children environmental stewardship.

For Sterner and the rest of the team members — all of whom have participated for only a year — evaluating if these objectives are the best ways to engage campus is a valid question.

“We dug into some of these objectives,” Sterner said. “Maybe some of them don’t necessarily need to be replaced, but they might not be as applicable today as they were originally. We’ve had to ask, ‘How do you reframe the question? How do we modernize it?’ A lot of stuff has changed since 2020.”

The iCAP Engagement Team has worked with the Illini Union, Athletics, and other iCAP teams on sustainability initiatives — and campaigned to find volunteers for myriad events. However, its main challenge is defining what its role should be as campus pushes to net zero.

No argument there. But what to do in the meantime? The answer: Be as multi-purpose as a Swiss Army knife.

The Engagement Team has become the Illinois Climate Action Plan’s all-in-one resource. It is the iCAP’s central connectivity hub, Army Reserves, and PR team: If any of the iCAP teams need boots on the ground fast, the Engagement Team is ready to deploy.

Nowhere was this more apparent than during the university’s most recent Zero Waste events. “We had people asking where they could get volunteers,” Sterner said. “So one of our students on our team worked with the Office of Civic Life, and we were able to generate a lot of volunteers for these programs for the Zero Waste Team.”

Other ongoing sustainability programs, like Green Quad Day and “Sustainapalooza”— an event newly conceived by the Student Sustainability Leadership Council (SSLC) — were identified by the Engagement Team as opportunities to collaborate with other campus sustainability organizations in mobilizing students to get them involved in campus sustainability projects.

Or, put more succinctly by Sterner, “Get a group that’s passionate enough, realign everyone’s goals, and move forward rapidly.”

Sounds a lot like engagement.

Wrapping up our iCAP retrospective …

So, where do we go from here? Based on our roundup of progress and challenges since iCAP 2020, the University of Illinois community must keep three main things in mind if it truly wants to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050:

Energy, Energy, Energy

How each iCAP chapter directly impacts the university’s greenhouse gas emissions varies significantly. The vast majority of our carbon emissions come from how campus makes its energy, which is mostly through the fossil fuel-powered Abbott Power Plant.

Campus has pursued almost every option for renewable energy available — solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear — but all of those and more will be required to cut university emissions to zero.

The U of I has made progress on that front. In 2008, the university emitted 575,088 tons of greenhouse gases. In 2023, that dropped to 391,279 tons, within reach of the 2025 goal of 344,906 tons.

Individual actions, like turning off lights, unplugging electronics, using more efficient appliances, and taking shorter showers, can aid in reducing that figure only en masse. And still they will not be enough to get campus emissions to zero. Therefore, campus must continually emphasize updating its energy infrastructure as the priority.

It’s all interconnected

We’ve had a drought the past two years here in Champaign-Urbana, which has killed a significant number of trees that were planted on campus to help us reach our Land & Water goals. The lack of trees, in turn, makes our community less resilient to increased stormwater surge.

Just one example of how the problems that each iCAP chapter tackles are so intertwined. That idea applies to solutions as well.

Perhaps the most effective way to reduce university emissions isn’t by re-engineering solar panels to be a fraction of a percent more efficient. Instead, it could be through advocacy. Maybe the best way to get people to reduce driving time is by making walkways and bike paths more shaded and, therefore, more enjoyable. Or perhaps students in the university’s Environmental Leadership Program (a successfully completed objective in the Education chapter) could even lobby lawmakers to ban state institutions from using, or investing in, fossil fuels.

Thinking of the climate issue on our campus or anywhere through the lens of one single discipline, cause, or iCAP chapter only narrows our solutions. Seeing our individual work as something that can have vast repercussions — whether good or ill — can make us more aware and deliberate in our decisions as the university continues toward net zero.

Let the students lead

Finally, campus must never forget its greatest asset and very reason for existence: Its students. Our generation and those of the future will live with climate change’s worst effects — things that we were not necessarily responsible for creating.

As an individual of this campus and a resident of this planet, by far the most impactful thing you can do is get yourself, as well as others, involved. At a university with over 50,000 people, changing the energy infrastructure, cutting down on food and plastic waste, reducing energy and water demand, and advocating for land management practices that increase carbon storage can only be accomplished together.

“Since the iCAP 2020, we’ve made major progress to decrease our carbon footprint and improve environmental sustainability on campus. This is the result of cross-campus efforts led by Facilities & Services, the iCAP teams, iSEE, and other partners in sustainability efforts like the Illini Union, DIA, the Office of Student Success, Inclusion and Belonging, and many others – notably the Student Sustainability Committee and student groups that help mobilize support for sustainability initiatives,” said iSEE Sustainability Programs Coordinator Miriam Keep.

“There is still much work ahead of us, and we look forward to continuing to work across campus and build new partnerships to meet our long-term sustainability goals with the iCAP 2025!”

There is a place for everyone here, not just the scientists or the engineers or the communications experts. Skilled and willed people from every discipline and every background are needed to get our campus to net zero.

And by banding our voices together, we might advocate for the necessary change at a larger level: asking the Urbana-Champaign campus, the University of Illinois system, and the state that governs it to align their wallet with their words.

For centuries, we Illini have gone on to do great things in the world. That process does not have to start after we walk across the graduation stage. If we can truly change our complex, large university into a bastion of climate action, more organizations — other universities, corporations, governments — will see proof that sustainability is truly possible, and then, hopefully, follow in our footsteps.

Data-Driven Approach to Sustainable Transportation: Jessika Trancik Q&A

Jessika Trancik is a professor at the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her research examines the dynamic costs, performance, and environmental impacts of energy systems to inform climate policy and accelerate beneficial and equitable technology innovation. Her projects focus on all energy services — including electricity, transportation, heating, and industrial processes. This work spans solar energy, wind energy, energy storage, low-carbon fuels, electric vehicles, and nuclear fission, among other technologies. She is also an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and was formerly at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and at WSP International/UNOPS (now Interpeace) in Geneva.

She will be the plenary speaker at the upcoming UIUC-UIC collaborative workshop, “Envisioning Equitable Transitions to Sustainable Transportation Systems,” on May 16-17, 2024, in Chicago. Ahead of this event, iSEE Communications Specialist April Wendling sat down with her to discuss her work.

April Wendling: Could you tell me a bit about your area of study?

Jessika Trancik: My work focuses on evaluating different potential climate solutions with a particular focus on energy solutions. I develop data-informed models to understand the impacts of those solutions and which ones might be most promising to invest in developing further. The idea is to use data-informed models to anticipate what sorts of energy solutions can be used to achieve the best outcomes. And information from these models can allow decision-makers to be deliberate about the investments they’re making in this transition, given the limited time to mitigate climate change and the finite financial resources available.

AW: What do these models look like?

JT: One example we’ve worked on quite a bit is modeling optimal locations for electric vehicle charging stations. One of the research questions we asked was: where should we place chargers so that people can conveniently charge their vehicles? Also, what is the rate of charging that would be needed in each of those different locations? There are a lot of factors that you need to take into consideration for a model like this. There’s the capacity of the batteries and range of the vehicles, where do people naturally stop and for how long, and how predictable are those behavioral patterns?

And what we find is that if you just haphazardly install chargers at, for example, shopping centers or malls, rather than in deliberate locations based on our understanding of how people use their vehicles, you end up with huge inefficiencies in your system. And inefficiencies prevent the system from working well for the people using it.

It’s really important to consider the variability of different people’s travel patterns and where they might park and where charging stations can be installed, and overall, one can design infrastructure to save people time, which ultimately would allow more people to adopt electric vehicles if they want to.

We also do a lot of work on comparing the costs and the emissions of different vehicle options, and then just generally in the transportation space, there’s a lot of questions at the intersection of technology, performance, and behavior. How good are technologies today, how much might they improve, how can we improve them, and then how does that fit in with people’s behaviors and what people want. So this research spans engineering and human behavior.

AW: How do you keep track of all these people using electric vehicles?

JT: We study not just the electric vehicle owners of today, but also people who may be electric vehicle owners in the future. The people that have already adopted electric vehicles in this country have primarily been wealthier individuals — they may be more likely to have off street parking spots, be able to install chargers at home, and have more than one car. And all of that is not really a model for a future equitable transition to sustainable transportation. It’s really important that the data covers the populations overall, not just early electric vehicle adopters.

We draw on a number of different datasets, and part of the modeling is to develop ways to match information across these datasets, so you can probabilistically match detailed data on a given trip with a less detailed but broader dataset covering an entire population that looks at how many trips they take per day, and their start times and end times and so on. We’ve worked mostly with publicly available data at various resolutions. And we’ve also done some data collection ourselves.

AW: I bet what you find from these models is very different depending on where you’re looking, right?

JT: There are differences, but there are some ways in which the results were more similar across urban and rural areas, and across different cities, than we expected. One of those results was from a paper we published back in 2016. We asked what percentage of vehicles on the road could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle without having to recharge during the day.

We looked across the entire country, and the answers weren’t as different as you might expect. It doesn’t mean that the cities are the same — some cities are much more car dependent than others. But when people do drive, there’s a certain similarity in the energy use. And our results indicated that across many different kinds of cities, there was a much larger adoption potential than one might have expected. Even at that time, close to 90% of vehicles could be replaced with these low-cost electric vehicles even if they could only charge overnight.

AW: What are some key areas in the coming years where you think we need to devote a lot of thought?

JT: Finding out what people want from climate solutions and what fits in with their lifestyles is what’s crucial. Many people do want to address climate change. There are many different opinions on how to do that and how urgent it is, but overall, people do want solutions, and many of these solutions provide other benefits, like cleaner air or more convenience. But it’s important to understand people’s varying preferences and to develop solutions that account for them.

One other thing I want to say is if we’re talking about reducing emissions from transportation, this is a very substantial change: It’s going to require a lot of investment. In this country and a number of others, we need to look at the challenges people face in accessing transportation resources. There are many people who don’t have access at all to a high-quality transportation service. And any time you’re talking about this major transition, those issues really need to be addressed, because this is going to require such substantial change and investment. I just think we have to remember that transportation is really about providing a service, and right now that service is unevenly available to people. That needs to be a central part of this overall effort.

AW: Could you tell me about the other research you do?

JT: I work across all different energy services, and I look at these questions about how to be deliberate about developing and investing in green technologies. That work involves developing both data-driven models and mechanistic models. And we’re working across industrial energy services, electricity, transportation, and heating, so we’re not just focused on one energy service. Some of the work I do is look at how technologies change over time — the rates of change, the drivers of that change.

AW: Could you give an example of these models?

JT: We have something we’ve developed called the Sustainable Energy Systems Model that allows us to look at the electric power system. We use a cost minimization framework to ask the question, if you want to minimize the overall cost of electricity and incorporate renewables, but also reduce emissions and also provide a high-quality service, how much solar and wind capacity might you want, how much storage, and can those options be complemented by other sources of power?

One question of particular interest is the role of hydrogen fuel and the different cost drivers for producing it. We are interested in how to reduce the cost of green hydrogen.

iSEE Seeks Critical Conversation Topic

Four people seated at a round table with other tables in the background at the 2023 iSEE Critical Conversation

The Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment (iSEE) invites proposals to organize a Critical Conversation on a topic that presents a complex sustainability challenge that has different interest groups that would be affected by possible solutions. Preference will be given to topics of regional significance with international relevance.

Submission form >>>

A Critical Conversation is a facilitated, constructive, and inclusive discourse, under the Chatham House Rule, among individuals that bring widely differing perspectives. A successful Critical Conversation often has the outcome of clarifying a research agenda to find effective solutions that address the problem. A Critical Conversation requires curation of an invited list of participants well informed about the topic from industry, academia, government, and non-governmental or community-based organizations to share their viewpoints on a complex, multi-faceted, coupled human-environment problem and identify potential technical, market and policy pathways for finding a solution.

The proposing team works closely with the Institute, which will provide organizational support to hold the Critical Conversation. iSEE staff will work with the proposing team to convene planning meetings, invite a keynote speaker, panelists, and participants, and organize the venue and travel. The Institute will also arrange for an external moderator to facilitate the conversation. All direct costs for the event will be borne by iSEE.

Read more details on our Critical Conversations website.

The deadline to fill out the online submission form is Nov. 17, 2023. The event will be scheduled for Fall 2024 with planning meetings beginning early Spring 2024.

Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Q&A

Today’s farmers are on the front lines of climate change. Higher temperatures, wildly variable rainfall, and unrelenting droughts, storms, and floods have upended growing seasons and threatened their livelihoods.

“Climate-smart agriculture” promises a more sustainable and resilient farming future — but how do we help farmers get there?

Maggie Monast, Senior Director for Climate-Smart Agriculture, Finance & Markets at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), is dedicated to smoothing that transition. Monast works with banks, cooperatives, and others in the agricultural finance sector to make it easier for farmers to adopt climate-smart practices that curb harmful emissions and grow food in a sustainable way — while earning stable profits in a changing world.

Monast is the keynote speaker for the fifth Critical Conversation hosted by the Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment (iSEE) in September, a forum in Chicago for farmers, food distributors, consumers, researchers and other stakeholders to discuss climate-smart commodities and agricultural practices and their potential role in enhancing resilience in the Midwest. The event is sponsored by the Alvin H. Baum Family Fund.

In her Sept. 18 public keynote, “Climate-Smart Agriculture: Overcoming Barriers and Financing the Transition,” Monast will review the public and private investments needed to help transform the way agriculture operates. The next day, invited stakeholders will continue the discussion on several fronts.

In this Q&A with iSEE, Monast explains how the climate is already affecting farmers and how the agricultural sector is responding to what she calls the most significant challenge to farming today — and in the future.

What is climate-smart agriculture?

Climate-smart agriculture involves two main goals. The first is to mitigate climate pollutants from agriculture — which includes reducing greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane, sequestering carbon, and avoiding conversion of natural areas to agriculture. Second, agriculture needs to build resilience to the impacts of climate change that are already occurring to maintain food production.

We’re already seeing climate change affecting agriculture, with rising temperatures, rainfall changes, and drought. Where are you seeing the greatest impact on farmers in the U.S.?

I think the most important thing to realize is that every region in the U.S. is grappling with climate change, and those challenges surface in different ways in different places. For example, we’re seeing a lot of issues with water availability in the western part of the country — tremendous drought followed by tremendous rains. And producers in that area are having to make tough choices about what to plant and how much of it, and how they’re going to use their available water or try to get more water. On the East Coast, we’re dealing with much flashier rains and more frequent and severe storms. I live in North Carolina, and increased hurricane intensity and flooding has been a major issue for farmers. Across the country we’re seeing higher temperatures, which creates a lot of stress on crops, and different crops deal with that differently. In the Midwest, higher temperatures create a lot of stress during pollination for corn, especially with those hot days and nights not offering any respite.

Natural disasters also impact infrastructure and disrupt supply chains, as well as the people who grow our food. Farmers and farm workers are challenged by these weather conditions, whether it’s too much heat or the dangers of extreme weather.

So climate-smart agriculture not only makes sense from a global climate view, it makes sense for farmers as well?

Climate-smart agriculture is inherently local, and it is aimed at addressing the local impacts of climate change as well as mitigating climate pollution that has a global impact. So the right practices and farm management changes really do depend on the local climate stressors, the commodities that are grown in a given region, and how farmers can adapt and build in resilience to those stressors in order to reduce the impact on our food production and the people and the animals involved.

What is a climate-smart commodity?

A climate-smart commodity is any commodity that’s produced using climate-smart practices or management systems toward the goals of reducing climate pollution and building climate resilience. So perhaps climate-smart livestock is endeavoring to reduce methane emissions. Climate-smart grains would be focused on reducing nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer, improving soil health through practices such as no-till and cover crops, and diversifying crop rotations.

Tell us how your work with EDF is helping to promote climate-smart agriculture.

My work focuses on how we pay for climate-smart agriculture. It’s one of the first questions that a farmer will ask you. They may want to adopt new practices, but any change requires some measure of cost and risk. Many of those changes can also offer longer-term benefits and increased value, but the challenge is getting there.

I work with folks throughout the agricultural system, but especially agricultural finance providers like banks and cooperatives, to help them better understand the cost challenges in that transition and also the benefits and value that can be gained on the other side. The goal is for agricultural finance providers to more proactively support their farmer customers in managing through that transition and ultimately becoming more profitable over the long term with climate-smart agriculture.

What are the barriers to that transition? What needs to change in terms of insurance or financial products to make all of this work?

The agricultural finance sector is still in the early days of figuring out its role as it relates to climate change. For example, along with Deloitte we conducted the first-ever global survey of agricultural finance institutions on climate risks and opportunities last year. We found that 87 percent of agricultural lenders see climate change as a material risk to their business, but just 25 percent have begun incorporating climate change into their decision-making in a significant way. So there’s still a big gap between the perceived risk of climate change and what agricultural finance providers are doing about it.

What we are seeing now is that many agricultural finance providers are trying to understand climate risks, they are starting to build up their teams internally — hiring chief sustainability officers for the first time, creating sustainability reports for the first time — and then trying to learn from their farmer customers and others in the landscape, like supply chain companies, to figure out what they can do and how they can be effective in doing it.

Are they developing new kinds of loans or insurance coverage?

We are seeing a few innovative financial products out in the marketplace. One example is a collaboration between EDF and Farmers Business Network on a farm operating loan that provides an interest rate rebate for farmers who meet environmental standards for climate and water quality. That program started as a $25 million fund in 2022 and was so successful it doubled in size to $50 million this year.

I always try to encourage finance providers to think about what problem they’re trying to solve. Because different climate-smart agricultural transitions will require different financial solutions. So it’s different if we’re talking about a significant risk or an upfront cost, or a long transition period. Farmers need different financial solutions to overcome those financial barriers.

For example, there’s the case of transition risks, where farmers worry about losing some crop yield as they switch to new practices like cover crops. We’ve seen some risk products like warranties that provide compensation to the farmer if he or she does experience a yield drag during cover crop adoption. My hope is that we’ll see a proliferation of different types of financing that are tailored to help farmers overcome the financial barriers they face in adopting these practices.

Is this effort still in the early stages?

I think we are finally seeing the scale of investment that’s needed in climate-smart agriculture, both with the scale of the federal investment that was made through the Inflation Reduction Act and many of the USDA programs, including the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program (which funded a new iCOVER project through iSEE). And we’re also starting to see much more private sector investment, whether it’s through major food companies, carbon programs, or agricultural finance providers. While many climate-smart practices are not new, in the past few years are we seeing investment on the scale that is going to be needed to actually solve this problem.

Is the industry fairly attuned to climate risks after seeing the impact on the ground, or do businesses still need some convincing at this point?

The agricultural finance industry is still in the early days of understanding these risks and what they mean for their businesses. As farmers experience the impacts of climate change, of course their finance providers see that, too, in their communities. But the much bigger question for them is what do they do about it? How do they assess those risks in a forward-looking way? How do they incorporate that information into their own planning, and how do they help producers to ultimately reduce those risks? And that’s where this conversation needs to go.

What other kinds of things is EDF doing to advance this work?

Our Climate-Smart Agriculture team works globally on climate-smart agriculture — and then from a variety of different perspectives. So we have policy teams who are working on the farm bill right now in the U.S. We have a science team that’s really digging into the science around soil carbon and methane, and nitrous oxide, and trying to figure out what types of practices and management shifts really create climate benefits. We have my agricultural finance and markets team, which is focused on unlocking the financing for climate-smart agriculture solutions. And we also have a supply chain team that works closely with companies throughout the food and agriculture sector to help them set goals to reduce emissions and then figure out how to collaborate with farmers to achieve those goals.

Do you have a willing audience? Are they receptive to these ideas?

I’ve been working on agriculture at EDF for 12 years, and I have seen a very significant shift during that time in terms of the openness and willingness of people in the agriculture sector, everyone from farmers to major farm organizations and companies, to talk about climate change and to proactively engage on these topics and try to figure out solutions. I think the biggest reason for that shift is that farmers are really feeling those impacts now. And because of that it’s become much more real. We now have much more interest and engagement by organizations throughout the agricultural system to try to collaborate and figure out what to do about it.

For example, EDF was a founding member of the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance, a group that is developing climate and agriculture policy solutions in Washington, D.C. Now is the time to be working together on these issues.

Would you say climate change is one of the biggest threats to agricultural livelihoods?

Climate change is the biggest threat to agriculture. Farmers depend on predictable weather and on natural resources to grow crops and livestock, and the pace of adaptation is just not keeping up with the pace that the climate is changing. We’re in a critical period both to bring down emissions and to accelerate efforts to build resilience to the impacts of climate change that are already happening.

Five years from now, or 10 years, what would you like to see in place to achieve real progress?

I hope we’re in a place where the agricultural industry and community has realized that climate-smart agriculture is the path toward profitable, successful farmers and stable farmer livelihoods. And so investment, both private and public, has reoriented to be all-in on climate-smart agriculture.

For example, there’s much better information for farmers to make economic decisions on conventional practices than on climate-smart practices, so at EDF we work with universities to build up farm financial information on climate-smart practices so farmers have the information they need to adopt these practices profitably. Everywhere there’s an imbalance like this, we need to see much more support and investment so that climate-smart becomes the new status quo.

What does that look like, in terms of support?

It means reorienting our research, it means reorienting what our public programs are funding. It means much greater investment by food companies and by finance providers. It means new markets for environmental services provided by farmers. Every current segment of the agricultural system needs to bring that climate-smart lens into how they operate in the future.

An example is our current crop insurance program. The best crop insurance coverage is for the major grain crops, and it supports farmers in maintaining their businesses in the face of natural disasters. However, it’s not forward-looking in terms of what climate impacts are going to occur and how that’s likely to accelerate in the future. We also need a lot more thinking about how we can encourage farmers to adopt practices or make other changes on their farms that actually reduce their underlying risk. We need a crop insurance program that’s more tuned into the impacts of climate change and more supportive of farmers who are taking actions to reduce their underlying risk. That would mean insuring things in a different way that brings the likely increased risks of climate change, and farmers’ ability to reduce risks through management changes, more explicitly into the pricing of their insurance.

— Article by iSEE Communications Specialist Julie Wurth

Op-Ed: Let’s Break the ‘Midterm Curse’

EDITOR’S NOTE: iSEE Communications Intern Lucy Nifong is passionate about the importance of students voting, and she offers this op-ed piece to bolster that argument.

The countdown to midterm election day has begun. In Illinois, one U.S. Senate seat and all 17 Illinois U.S. House of Representatives seats are on the ballot. This election will also decide the next state Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller, not to mention countless local elections.

Now more than ever, midterm elections are pivotal moments for our country’s future. The rise of political extremism, worsening climate change, and other prominent issues raise the stakes of today’s elections. These politics have an enormous impact on people’s outlook and optimism for the future.

Will politicians protect the Earth so I can grow old on a planet that I recognize?

Will I have the same rights I have now in a few years?

The 2022 midterm will be extremely close and decisive for the future of the United States. Growing political polarization as many societal issues reach a critical point will undoubtedly affect this year’s election, but it’s unclear how the 2022 political climate will interact with the “midterm curse.”

Although the national voting rate for college students increased 13 percentage points between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, student voting rates continue to plummet during midterm election years. At the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 66% of all eligible students voted during the 2020 presidential election, the same as the national average voting rate for college students. Meanwhile, the campus student voting rate for the 2018 midterm election was only 40% (the same as the national average voting rate for college students that year) — though in fact that was a record turnout for student voting during midterms.

The trend of lower voter participation at midterms extends far beyond college campuses. National voting rates are roughly 20% lower in midterm years compared to presidential election years. This leads to the feared “midterm curse” in which only voters who dislike the president and the president’s political party are motivated to vote. Supporters usually feel no need to enact change through their vote since they are content with the current political leadership. The curse has affected nearly every midterm election in recent history, as midterms do not have the same popularity, “wow factor,” or straightforwardness of presidential elections.

Efforts on Campus

To combat the curse, members of the Student Sustainability Committee (SSC), the campus chapter of Planned Parenthood Generation Action (PPGA), and many other student organizations are working overtime to convince students to cast their vote.

Maddie Gats and other SSC Communications Project Leads are developing a social media campaign to promote voting among students concerned with environmental issues in politics. “Information is a powerful tool,” she said. “Just letting students know of websites they can use to register to vote and locations to submit their ballots will have a major impact.”

Gats believes the 2022 midterm season will begin to push environmental issues back to the forefront of American politics.

“Over the past couple years, most elections have focused on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic issues surrounding the pandemic,” she said. “However, as we have slowly returned to normalcy, I think environmental issues and issues regarding sustainability are coming back onto the agendas of businesses and the mass public.”

As politicians turn their attention back to environmental issues, being aware of the values and perspectives of the candidates we vote for is essential for electing politicians that advocate for the environment.

PPGA Co-Presidents Adriana Nguyen and Emma Darbro are determined to overcome the challenges students face that may deter them from voting. Students, especially freshman, are often hesitant to vote.

“After hearing that we would support them, help them get registered beforehand, let them know who Planned Parenthood endorses, and offer to go to the polls with them, that hesitation evaporates,” said Nguyen. PPGA plans to vote early as a group to empower new and returning voters at the polls.

Unlike PPGA, which advocates for reproductive rights, SSC must remain politically neutral as a university-affiliated organization. Claire Keating, the SSC’s Education and Justice Working Group Chair, argues this should not stop organizations from encouraging students to vote.

“Mass mails should be sent out to encourage students,” Keating said (campus sent one on Oct. 25). “Setting up tables on the Quad to help them register is a great way of increasing student voter engagement. In addition, creating an easy list of candidates who support certain policies will allow students to feel encouraged and empowered to vote.”

By facilitating registration, providing information on the voting process, and breaking down the real-world impact of electing different candidates, student organizations embolden young people to make their voice heard.

“We always appreciate other RSOs who continue to mobilize young people by helping them register to vote, providing information on candidates, and even providing opportunities to speak with candidates to truly humanize the name they fill the bubble next to,” said Darbro, “but there can never be enough.”

For Keating, voting itself is an act of environmental advocacy.

“This midterm election is crucial to the environment. Moreover, every election after this will be important for environmental sustainability. There are some candidates who don’t even believe in climate change, and there are other candidates who are fighting to create a healthy environment for all.”

From now until Nov. 8, it is up to us to elect these candidates.

Author Lucy Nifong sporting an “I voted” sticker

Not Too Late to Cast Your Vote

I believe it is impossible to “not care about politics.” Policy impacts every aspect of our lives whether we accept it or not. You can deny this, or you can determine who has the power to make the policy that affects you and the people you care about.

So, here is how students can vote in the upcoming midterm election.

In Illinois, everyone must register before voting. Although the online registration deadline was Oct. 23, you can register in-person at your local elections office from now until election day, Nov. 8. To register in Illinois, you must be at least 18 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a resident of Illinois, and a resident of whatever precinct you wish to vote in for at least 30 days before election day. This means that students from other parts of Illinois may choose to register to vote in Urbana-Champaign rather than in their hometown. In fact, PPGA encourages members from regions of Illinois with likely landslide election outcomes to register in Urbana-Champaign, where election results are more uncertain.

Once registered, Illinois residents may vote by mail, vote early in-person, or vote in-person on election day. If you wish to vote by mail, you can apply online for an absentee ballot up until Nov. 3, which is five days before election day. The ballot will be mailed to you with instructions and a return envelope to submit by mail. The completed ballot must be postmarked by election day. Early in-person voting is also open at various locations until Nov. 7. By entering your county on the Board of Elections website, you can find early voting locations and hours for your precinct.

For students voting in Urbana-Champaign, the Illini Union is an early voting site! Cast your ballot on the first floor of the Union any time from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturdays, or 1 to 4 p.m. Sundays. Beginning Monday, Oct. 31, the Siebel Center for Design will serve as an early voting location during the same hours.

On Nov. 8, polling places will be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. If you’re in line at your polling place by 7 p.m., you have a right to cast your vote. Additionally, Illinois voters are not required to show ID when voting as long they have shown proof of ID when initially registering to vote. You can find your election day polling place here.

For information on voting in other states, go to Vote.org to find your state’s voting rules, deadlines, and polling place location. Be sure to travel home to vote early, or vote by mail, as soon as possible. And note: Nov. 8 is a campus holiday — so you can get to the polls anytime without missing class.

As college students, we are constantly busy, may not have our own transportation, or otherwise feel like voting is too much of a hassle. Luckily for us, many aspects of voting are now online, the Illini Union is an early voting location, and election day is a campus holiday. Voting is 100% accessible to college students! We should not let our classes, jobs, extracurriculars, or social life be an excuse to not cast a vote. So bring a friend with you to vote at the Illini Union, cast your vote early next time you travel home for the weekend, or make a gameplan to vote on Nov. 8.

For descriptions of the candidates on your midterm ballot, use the nonpartisan Illinois Voter Guide created by the League of Women Voters in Illinois. By entering your address, you can view your sample ballot with a summary of each candidate’s values and links to further information.

If you’re interested in politics and public policy — and perhaps shaping future policy — check out iSEE’s Environmental Leadership Program. Experience the policy development process firsthand at the state and local level and engage with leaders in government. The deadline to apply is has been extended to Monday, Nov 7, 2022.

iSEE Names New Associate Director

RODRÍGUEZ

The Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment is pleased to welcome Luis F. Rodríguez as its new Associate Director for Education & Outreach, effective today.

Rodríguez, an Associate Professor of Agricultural & Biological Engineering who has been at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign since 2005, will assume a leadership role for iSEE’s educational programs, including the Sustainability, Energy, and Environment Fellows Program (SEE FP, a campus-wide honors minor) and the new undergraduate Environmental Leadership Program (ELP). Additionally, he will oversee the Levenick iSEE Teaching Fellows program, which funds faculty from across campus to build new courses in sustainability or to incorporate sustainability elements into existing courses.

Rodríguez has recently led a National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary graduate student training program in the area of food-energy-water systems and a National Institutes of Food and Agriculture-funded research and education program targeting Disaster Relief and Resilience. In addition, he teaches a new series of courses in Engineering for Disaster Resilience, which includes a study tour to Puerto Rico where students engage directly with community members seeking to increase their preparedness.

Wearing t-shirts and hats, a group of 21 students post for a group photo outdoors in a wetland — During a study tour to Puerto Rico, Luis Rodríguez and his students cleared invasive species in a wetland.

Among his outreach duties, Rodríguez will spearhead organization of the annual iSEE Congress each fall and help bring in speakers for annual Earth Month lectures each April.

“We are delighted to bring Luis on board at iSEE,” Interim Director Madhu Khanna said. “Luis brings rich experience in developing interdisciplinary educational opportunities for students at the graduate and undergraduate level and in engaging students in experiential learning. Under his leadership we anticipate keeping iSEE’s education and outreach offerings trending upward and engaging an increasing number of students and faculty through campus-wide educational offerings.

“We thank Gillen Wood for serving in this role since 2018. He did an outstanding job administering our academic programs, shepherding the launch of the ELP, and leading the organization of the iSEE Congress. We are delighted that Gillen will continue to serve as Director for the Certificate in Environmental Writing (CEW) and remain Editor of the CEW’s unique undergraduate-written, professionally curated Q Magazine.”

Wood, a Professor of Environmental Humanities in the Department of English, is stepping back into a more limited role with the Institute as he pursues exciting research opportunities during a 2021 Carnegie Fellowship. He was instrumental in launching the Levenick Teaching Fellows program as well as the CEW, a partnership with the English Department and the School of Earth, Society, and Environment.