T
he University of Michigan
recently
announced
that it has received Bee
Campus Certification from Bee
Campus USA, which recognized
our campus for establishing
pollinator habitats, creating nest
sites and reducing pesticides.
While
these
are
laudable
achievements, the fact remains:
We need to do more.
The prospects for insect life,
and by extension our wellbeing,
are
bleak.
Traditionally
composing half of all animal
biomass
—
the
total
mass
of
a
population,
reflecting
the importance it has in the
ecosystem — insects have seen
a
precipitous
decline,
with
the total biomass of insects
collapsing at a rate of 2.5% every
single year over the last 25 to
30 years. The causes of their
collapse are clear: habitat loss,
herbicides, invasive species and
of course climate change. While
as a campus we may not have
power to stop the corporations
burning fossil fuels responsible
for climate change, we can
make a difference in the first
three. Our next steps are clear:
maintain our grounds without
the use of synthetic herbicides,
convert unused lawns into green
spaces and reintroduce native
plants.
The
benefits
are
straightforward.
By
no
longer poisoning the ground
with
synthetic
herbicides,
mycorrhizal fungi can return
to the soil and sustain plant
growth by providing mineral
nutrients and hydration. Native
plants allow native pollinators
to
compete
with
generalist
European
honeybees
that
could
otherwise
diminish
their population to the point of
local extinction. Through the
cultivation of native gardens and
pesticide-free lawns throughout
campus,
we
fight
habitat
fragmentation, allowing for the
connection and spread of local
populations of native insects. Not
only can these insects now play
their ecological role throughout
campus, but these populations
will also have better long-term
prospects when they are able
to migrate between spaces of
natural habitat.
So why haven’t we done
more? As the president of the
Entomology Club and a fellow
with Re:wild Your Campus, I
have worked to establish organic
plots of land on campus. Time
and time again, two issues were
raised: funding and image. The
grounds team and sustainability
office
have
expressed
enthusiasm about these solutions
and are already experimenting
with
organic
methods
like
compost tea applications and
organic products, but a larger
campus-wide
transition
will
require a signature from higher-
ups. In order to save biodiversity
on
campus,
the
University
needs to set aside money for the
initial costs of transitioning to
an organic campus. At this, the
University hesitates: Is it worth
the startup cost? What will
current students, alumni and
potential students think when
the manicured lawn is no longer
a desert of grass?
Perceptions
are
changing;
students want to see change to
campus. This academic year,
the Entomology Club conducted
an online survey of 105 people
distributed on campus, with
98 student respondents. Out of
our 105 respondents, 90 (85.7%)
responded that they supported
zero
usage
of
synthetic
herbicides on campus. When
asked how they would feel if it
meant that “certain grounds on
campus would look less green
and neat for a while,” we found
that 87% of respondents still
supported stopping synthetic
herbicide use as “a necessary
process.” An additional 11% said
they would support organic
groundskeeping, though they
hope the appearance change
would not last long. Finally, we
found that a remarkable 60% of
respondents would be willing to
volunteer on campus weeding
days.
Other campuses are already
ahead of us. Harvard University,
University
of
California,
Berkeley, University of Texas,
Austin and others have already
taken the steps necessary to
make their campus synthetic
herbicide free. Most similar to
us, UC Berkeley successfully
transitioned 95% of their campus
to organically managed land
over the course of only five years.
As a result, the microorganisms
in the soil increased twenty-
two fold. Students driving this
change at UC Berkeley created
a national organization, Re:wild
Your Campus, to encourage other
schools to also go organic. Most
importantly, research conducted
there found that investing in a
compost tea brewer yielded a
$100,000 yearly benefit to the
soil. Harvard similarly reported
that use of the organic clippings
as compost saved the University
an annual $10,000 for 5,000
acres of land.
This isn’t to say our grounds
team is not trying. In a recent
meeting, we discussed a trial
of an organic product they will
be using on the Diag. They are
open to alternatives and have
already
implemented
some
best practices like soil testing
and the application of nutrient-
rich compost teas. But, like
many campuses, our grounds
department is underfunded and
asked to maintain a vast campus
to a world-class standard.
With support from the student
body
and
enthusiasm
from
grounds, it is time that we make
the leap to organic land care. In
transitioning to organic land
care, our campus can become
Green Grounds certified, a first-
of-its-kind
certification
that
goes above and beyond chemical
reduction to ensure the campus
is taking steps to promote
biodiversity
and
ecological
health. We cannot fall further
behind. We are the leaders and
best and it’s time we acted like it:
It’s time to change how we think
about our lawns.
Opinion
Op-Ed: Bee Campus
Certification is not enough
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, April 19, 2023
MAXWELL KLEIN
Opinion Columnist
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHANNON STOCKING
AND KATE WEILAND
Co-Editors in Chief
QUIN ZAPOLI AND
JULIAN BARNARD
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Jack Kapcar
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Zhane Yamin
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
JULIA VERKLAN AND
ZOE STORER
Managing Editors
Debates
on the
Diag
I
n January of this year, a local
nonprofit organization by
the name of Garrett’s Space
got $4 million in federal funding
to build a new center focused on
suicide prevention. A relatively
new institution, Garrett’s Space
has been offering professionally
facilitated, weekly support groups
for young adults for the past two
years. After the announcement
that Garrett’s Space was under
contract for a 76-acre parcel
of land in Superior Township,
neighbors
in
the
Fleming
Ridge subdivision mounted an
organized opposition campaign
to stop the center, citing concerns
about zoning and the center
being “quite literally in (their)
backyards.”
Garrett’s Space is hardly the
first institution or development
of any shape or size to face
“neighborhood
opposition.”
A
well-documented
phenomenon,
the
idea
of
neighborhood
opposition is most frequently
seen in local debates about
housing policy. Evidence has
shown that the empowerment of
neighborhood opposition raises
costs and contributes to the
housing crisis.
The opposition to Garrett’s
Space is deeply unserious and is a
clear example of not-in-my-back-
yard tendencies. The neighbors’
claims that this center will
damage their quality of life are not
based in reality and are another
instance of when “community
input” should be disregarded in
favor of the actual execution of
community benefits and goals.
In an interview with The
Michigan Daily, Scott and Julie
Halpert, the founders of Garrett’s
Space, said they didn’t expect
to face this kind of opposition to
their project.
“We had no idea that we would
be facing this type of organized
… hostile … opposition,” Scott
Halpert said.
Scott
and
Julie
founded
Garrett’s Space after realizing
there were no care options to help
their son Garrett when he was
struggling.
“This is a new way of creating
wrap-around holistic supports
that … really just is common
sense and we think it will make
a huge difference,” Julie Halpert
explained.
Scott and Julie told The
Daily that they’re not the only
ones who support their idea to
build a residential center for
youth severely struggling with
mental health. Scott said their
supporters
include
leading
experts from all over the state,
from the University of Michigan
and St. Joseph Hospital, as well
as the Washtenaw County Health
Department and other community
mental health services.
The Halperts said that much of
the opposition to Garrett’s Space
has refused to meet with them.
In February, they sent out a letter
explaining their intentions, and
the immediate response of the
neighbors was to go to the local
Superior Township government
to find ways to stop them.
Scott and Julie have answers to
a lot of the complaints lodged by
their neighbors.
“We are going to have very
stringent screening procedures,”
Julie said.
Scott added that they will
not serve as a replacement for
a psychiatric emergency room
either.
“We have to be careful that
they’re a threat to themselves,”
Scott said, speaking about young
people who may come to Garrett’s
Space for treatment, “but they’re
not a threat to others.”
The
Superior
Township
property they have proposed to
build Garrett’s Space on is in a
prime location, and Scott and
Julie recognize this.
“We just never thought it was
possible, honestly, to find such a
perfect place,” Julie said, “(one)
that’s secluded … accessible and in
a perfect location.”
Their board of directors wasn’t
approving of sites further away in
western Washtenaw County.
“Importantly, it’s close to the
more populated areas of our
county,” Scott said. “So it’s more
accessible to more people.”
Julie
added
that
it
is
significantly easier to get to
this location than a more rural
location.
The opposition to Garrett’s
Space isn’t a novel phenomenon.
People
have
been
opposing
change in their communities for
as long as communities have been
a thing, even when those projects
have
a
clear
neighborhood
benefit. For example, community
opposition is slowing down our
ability as a nation to fight climate
change. A law called the National
Environmental Policy Act is the
main culprit here. Originally
designed to ensure accountability
for disasters like oil spills, NEPA
gives anyone the ability to sue an
entity for reasons related to the
environment, whether genuine or
not. Currently, of all the projects
under NEPA review, only 15%
are fossil fuel projects, while
42% are related to clean energy.
Build Garrett’s Space
ABDULRAHMAN ATEYA
Opinion Columnist
Design by Haylee Bohm
Work remotely with flexible hours
Tutor incoming freshmen through online
classes that mirror actual coursework
Help provided for all preparatory and
grading work
Compensation - $35 hourly and upwards
Teaching Assistants
Grad students
Teaching staff
Looking for
MAY 15 – AUGUST 15, 2023
teachwithus@stemprep101.com
EMAIL US
WANTED!
Online STEM Tutors
STEM
PREP
101
APPLY NOW!
FRESHMAN PHYSICS AND CALCULUS
www.stemprep101.com
LEARN MORE
Read more at MichiganDaily.com