By Adyant Bhavsar ’28
Bellarmine’s annual Justice Summit challenged students to think critically about environmental justice throughbreakout sessions covering topics such as renewable energy, the impact of tropical islands, and conscious food habits. Among these, the Are We Cooked? session, hosted by the Bellarmine Sustainability Club, stood out as one of the most thought-provoking.
The session tackled a pressing question: Under a second Trump presidency, is climate change combatable, or are we “cooked”? In this session, students across all grades explored the potential impacts of policies such as deregulating emitting industries, returning the power of the EPA to states, and shifting energy production to domestic sources. The discussion encouraged students to engage with climate policy not just as a theoretical issue but as a real and evolving challenge shaped by political decisions.
Ben Quach ‘27, one of the student leaders who led the session, reflected on why the Sustainability Club chose this topic:
“We’re the Sustainability Club—so we should be looking at sustainability. This year’s Justice Summit was focused on environmental justice, so we felt obligated to host a session about climate and policy. One of the biggest events in the news right now is Trump’s second presidency and the executive orders he’s issued. Connecting current events to broader, ongoing issues is key to making the discussion relevant and impactful.”
A major point of debate was the instability of U.S. climate policy. Because of our country’s two-party system, climate initiatives often change dramatically between administrations. The speaker pointed to the U.S.’s history with the Paris Agreement: “Obama put the U.S. into the accords, Trump withdrew, Biden rejoined, and now Trump has withdrawn again. Without consistency, it’s hard to make lasting progress on sustainability.”
The session’s structure allowed for different levels of engagement. The first session of the day featured mostly questions rather than outright political debate. However, the second session became more polarized, shifting a divide between the facilitators and the students. By the third session, the club refined their approach, guiding students into a more interactive discussion. “That last session was the most constructive. Instead of debating against us, students debated each other, weighing the pros and cons of climate policy and its effects on the U.S. economy.”
One of the key concerns raised during the session was the challenge of balancing sustainability with economic growth. Some students questioned whether investing in global sustainability efforts would take resources away from domestic needs. Others were skeptical of electric vehicles, noting that much of the electricity used to charge them continues to come from fossil fuels. Another perspective was that meaningful climate action must come from national policy as opposed than individual efforts.
So, are we cooked? While no definitive answer was reached, the facilitators hoped students left with a renewed sense of personal responsibility. As one leader put it: “At the very least, I hope people become more conscious of their decisions. It might sound generic, but the three R’s matter: reduce, reuse, recycle. Reducing consumption—especially plastics made with fossil fuels—makes a big difference. Reusing items prevents unnecessary waste, and recycling, when done correctly, keeps materials out of landfills and incinerators. Small choices add up.”
The Are We Cooked? session left students with more questions than answers, but that was exactly the point. Climate policy isn’t static, and neither is the conversation. The future of sustainability depends on how we engage with these issues now—and how we act on them moving forward.