In this moment of popularity for the current green movement, several conflicting views have shaped the debate over climate change and sustainability. “Mitigation” is sometimes emphasized to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; proponents of “adaptation” focus on the changes needed to deal with global warming. From these serious viewpoints, claims of being “green” have (unfortunately) become popular labels rather than environmental statements. As described in “Costs constrict campus green efforts,” (September 5, 2008, Volume CXLIV, Number 2) and “Sustainability Grows Roots” (Wesleyan Magazine, Issue II. 2008), Wesleyan is an institution trying to pursue such a “green” label through the signing of the Presidents’ Climate Commitment last year and the active work of the Sustainability Advisory Group on Environmental Stewardship (SAGES). As the EON representative who sat next to President Roth during that signing and as an active member of SAGES, I am proud of the efforts made by President Roth and the Wesleyan community as a whole. However, I can say without doubt or hesitation that Wesleyan lacks the single most important criterion needed for any serious claim to “greenness:” the production of clean energy.
It is true that progressive actions have been taken in 1) building Fauver and Usdan efficiently, 2) reducing our carbon emissions through the installation of compact fluorescent lights, and 3) improving waste recycling and composting. I am proud and grateful for these institutional efforts and all of those made by the Wesleyan community members who strive to recycle, turn off lights and conserve water. Despite such sustainable efforts, though, the bottom line is that Wesleyan has always been and is on track to always be reliant on the burning of fossil fuels. The combustion of oil (thousands of gallons a day), natural gas and coal is what drives the lights, air conditioning, computers and equipment of this University and, by the way, results in the emission of roughly 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year (2007 statistic The ). No matter how many measures this University takes to reduce our energy consumption, the fact that we still rely on fossil fuels for virtually all of our energy negates any claim this University makes to being “green.”
If, however, Wesleyan invested in the production of renewable energy on a large scale (to join the likes of Middlebury’s biomass plant, Harvard’s solar panel arrays, and Carleton’s wind turbines), then every effort to reduce our energy consumption (both in the past and future) would simultaneously increase our relative use of clean, renewable fuels. Despite the large initial cost that so many other colleges and universities have made, the production of renewable energy on campus would provide energy independence, fiscal responsibility, and (perhaps most importantly) a legitimate claim for being “green.” Without such drastic efforts as a solar array on top of Freeman Athletic Center or a geothermal plant underneath Andrus Field, our reliance on the gases and oils of the world leaves us with no choice but to call ourselves “brown” — for there is nothing sustainable about relying on finite resources that are undeniably destroying the natural environment.
Leave a Reply