Many have heard the quote “Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink”, which is simply stating that humans ironically can’t drink saltwater. This quote, however, is starting to mitigate away from colloquial language – all thanks to the desalination industry. Simply put, the desalination process removes salt from the ocean water and makes it acceptable for human consumption.  On the surface, the desalination process seems like a viable and effective process which utilizes the massive amounts of water stored within our planet’s oceans.  However, the process is not energy efficient by any means, it is harmful to our oceans, expenive and it generates copious amounts of greenhouse gasses.

With respect to obtaining water, desalination is hands down the least energy efficient form. The water initially needs to be pumped into a desalination plant. From here the water must be intensively treated. The pumping and treating process, with respect to energy, requires many orders of magnitude more energy than traditional well pumping/mountain source waters.

The desalination process is especially bad for ocean ecological groups. The current process requires huge amounts of seawater, and kills countless aquatic species, such as plankton, krill and fish.  Of course, the loss of these species introduces a change of environment for hundreds of miles of coastline. The implementation of a desalination plant generally yields disrupted coastlines and aquatic life depletion.

Personally, the nail in the coffin for me regarding desalination is the cost.  The expense for the entire process to remove the salt from ocean water is extremely cost ineffective. High energy prices coupled with transportation costs shows that desalination is not up to par.

One must not forget the fact that, although desalination has its flaws, it still does create drinking water. An interesting fact is that currently, the industry is dominated by the private sector. Could this possibly be the next form of government owned privatized energy, similar to gasoline? Some food for thought.

Fortunately, the desalination process is not completely useless. The science, however, is not as advanced as it can be. The process of desalination remains a likely solution for our future water needs; but currently, it isn’t the optimal solution.  Ocean water should be converted to drinking water only if ocean ecology isn’t harmed, energy costs (and therefore greenhouse gas production) are reduced, and the cost is feasible and not dictated by privatized business nor strictly controlled by governmental policy.

Brent Lund can be reached at brlund@ucdavis.edu.

Graphic by CA Aggie Graphic Design Team

Photo by CA Aggie Photo Team

Everyone I’ve met, movie buff or general viewer, has an opinion about Richard Linklater’s Boyhood (2014). It came out last August after being filmed over a period of 12 years. I’ve heard, “Oh it’s so great, the perfect indie film, so inspiring!” Uh, alright. But I’ve also heard, “It was pretentious, I don’t even get what we’re suppose to get out of this.” Well then. I guess it’s up to me to decide which judge or praiser of this critically acclaimed movie is correct.

Boyhood is about a kid named Mason, played by Ellar Coltrane, living out his childhood, from the time he enters the first grade at age five, until his mother kicks him and his dirty goatee out the door and into college at age 18. Coltrane’s character became self aware and inquisitive about life itself, which most likely paralleled the stages Coltrane took as he grew out of his own boyhood. This style of directing took these actors out of their normal lives for only one week per summer for 12 consecutive years, creating a unique method of filming unheard of before this time and caused people to talk nonstop about it.

As I watched the film, I felt as if I was watching real life play before my eyes rather than a plot of a movie, which was the intention. Everything the actors did was completely raw and realistic to their own lives, especially for the children. At the beginning of the film, the older sister smacks her brother in the face with a pillow at 6 a.m. just to sing Britney Spears, and I felt connected this character, as I too have been that sister many times. Because the story was driven by time rather than plot, the soundtrack and wardrobe choices gave the film structure where it needed it, without forcing a plot into natural life. Coming-of-age themes came through deliberately and subtly, because reality doesn’t give you checkpoints to move past in order to officially “grow up.” Watching this movie made me feel like there was a camera watching my own every move, like my own life could be Oscar-nominated if there was a crew behind me. That sense of reflection is what gives the movie such depth and consciousness that can rarely be found in today’s hit blockbusters and dystopian genres.

However, when it came to the realizations that Coltrane’s character had, my experiences throughout the movie at first felt cheated and cheap. At the end, Mason agrees with a new college friend that (spoiler alert) “we don’t seize the moment, the moment seizes us.” As it was the last scene, there is major importance to this new understanding. I’ve had many people tell me with great force that this scene is an attempt to be profound, but that hearing a young white male talk about the meaning of life is repetitive and overdone. I, too, am tired of the default white male protagonist, and I could go on about why this movie wasn’t focused on the sister and called Girlhood. But I realized that whatever arrogance was included in the final scene of Boyhood was necessary for the overarching idea of growth and knowledge. People that have been telling me that the end was too predictable aren’t fully aware of themselves in a way that is necessary to fully connect with Linklater’s intentions. Maybe we are convinced that every white young man in American films is what we all can relate to only because that is the only thing given to us by the film industry as a whole, but it is true that the majority of movie viewers will relate to one character or another in this film. My peers who think that Coltrane’s character is attempting to find meaning in a life that already has one probably have just left this stage of self awareness themselves, or worse, are probably still in it. Are we so wrapped up in our own pretentiousness that we can’t stand to see it mimicked on screen?

This movie was built up a lot and to an interesting end. I am naturally pessimistic about the intentions of entertainment in general; I expected the more critical group to be correct. Like any movie that can be discussed at length and often way too much, I thought my experience would feel drawn out and lifeless, as I felt I had already seen it before the movie even started. However, I found myself enjoying the movie immensely but not necessarily for the reasons the pro-Boyhood moviegoers did. I liked the movie because I reflected on myself as I watched Mason and Samantha grow older naturally, just how I’ve seen myself grow over the last 20 years. This method of filming may not be revolutionary, but it was effective for Linklater’s vision and how it grasped audiences by the heartstrings. It’s important to see myself from an outside point of view at this time of my life, and critically viewing Boyhood allowed me to do so.

How has one or many people’s movie experience influenced the way you watched it? Contact me by email (endefazio@ucdavis.edu) or on twitter (@emdefaz10)

Graphic by CA Aggie Graphic Design Team

Photo by CA Aggie Photo Team

Disconnect between student body, student government greater than ever

If Rome did indeed fall in a day, maybe it’s not so unfathomable that ASUCD has seemingly collapsed in the span of two quarters.

In the ongoing ASUCD Winter Quarter elections, which began Tuesday and run till Friday morning, every single candidate will be elected. There are six senate candidates running for six spots and just one executive team vying for the Executive Office.

It is unclear how this lack of interest and dearth of candidates materialized. UC Davis is a school of action, socially and politically, where students and student leaders often call for change and more representation. Somehow, ASUCD has failed to seize the attention of those who lead different student communities and who desire to effect change on campus.

This election is not the first example of the disconnect between student government and the student body. Even in the fall 2014 election, only seven candidates ran for the six open spots.

Lack of student involvement in ASUCD is detrimental to the student body as a whole. There are fewer barriers to entry, allowing candidates who may not potentially be qualified to serve as student officials. Additionally, the dearth of candidates has led to a supermajority within ASUCD, as the S.M.A.R.T. slate will soon control eight of 12 senate seats. This essentially would allow for the slate to pass any legislation through without any significant roadblocks.

The senate has final control over the ASUCD budget, as it funds bills and allocates money to ASUCD’s various programs and units. UC Davis students should be able to choose the best possible candidates to make decisions with this money, and no group should be able to unilaterally impose its will on the student body. Student government needs open dialogue and discourse to most effectively represent the needs of different constituencies and communities.

While The Editorial Board does not have a singular answer to the cause of the issue, we worry about the ramifications of the current election. ASUCD should increase outreach in order to encourage students to run for student government. There obviously exist many different opinions on major campus issues, and we believe that there should subsequently be more students looking to join ASUCD in order to better represent the needs of the student body and to make a positive difference on the lives of UC Davis students.

The entire campus community would best be served if the discourse found outside the senate table – during student activist protests and demonstrations – thrived within the realm of ASUCD. The Editorial Board hopes that both ASUCD and the student body rise to the occasion between now and the next elections in the fall.

UC Davis students, the future of your university and student government lies in your hands. Seize the opportunity.

Graphic by Jennifer Wu