Wed 13 Jun 2007
Almost 300 college presidents have signed the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. But not Morty. Good for him!
RSS Feed
Wed 13 Jun 2007
Almost 300 college presidents have signed the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. But not Morty. Good for him!
June 13th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
All the environmentalists on campus won’t be happy about this…
Unless they just don’t notice. Which is possible, since most eveyone is home by now.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
why good for him? what’s your objection?
June 13th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Odd mix of schools on board so far. In general, it looks like New England schools are heavily represented. I counted 5 of the 11 NESCACs (Midd, Bowdoin, Bates, Hamilton, and Conn Coll).
Among public schools, there were two Berkshire institutions (MCLA and Berkshire Community College), and five of the six New England state universities (all but UConn).
But most of the highest-ranked New England schools were absent, not just Williams but also Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, Wesleyan, Tufts, Colby, and Amherst.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Also interesting to note: the ACUPCC provides a link to the Report of the Williams College Climate Action Committee Report as an example of a “Campus Greenhouse Gas Reduction Study”.
http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/html/overview.php
June 14th, 2007 at 3:56 am
Williams should not be involved in political causes which are not directly related to its mission of being the best college in the world. What about the American College & University Presidents Committment to End Domestic Violence? Are you against the American College & University Presidents Effort to Aid Wounded Veterans?
Now, I am as much against global warming and domestic violence (and in favor of helping wounded veterans) as the next Eph, but Williams, as an institution, should stay clear of such efforts, however worthy they might be.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Those are stupid examples. Williams does nothing to contribute to the problems of domestic violence or wounded veterans. But, as with any other college, it has a large environmental footprint.
What if Morty had a large red button in his house that, when pushed, added $100k to the endowment but killed a random person in a third-world country? If he wanted to make Williams the best college in the world, he could sit there all day pushing that button until Williams had a 1:1 professor:student ratio, full financial aid for everyone, etc. But should he?
If you think that human-caused global warming is a reality, and that if it runs unchecked it will lead to possibly disastrous consequences, then you have an obligation to at least minimize your contribution. Releasing tons and tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not so different, in the long run, from anonymously killing people. This is not a random political issue; it’s a way in which Williams is actively making the world a worse place.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:41 am
But, you see ‘10, thats kind of what happens, what with modern technology and all. You can reduce your impact, but its still there, for the most part. You’re still “anonymously killing people,” as per your analogy.
Would you rather have our campus move back to pre-Industrial Revolution standards? No electricity, we can burn wood for heat… not only will we be saving random people from a third world country that I’ve never met, but it will be fun! Except for the student or two who’ll succumb to hypothermia each year…
June 14th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Perhaps Morty has not yet drunk the Kool-Aid.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Williams is absolutely capable of reducing its carbon footprint; it’s doing a lot right now and it could do a lot more. Just because we can’t fix the entire problem at once doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can.
Also, modern technology cuts both ways. Heating the entire campus with wood would be quite a bit less efficient than at present (although honestly, if they really wanted to put fireplaces in every dorm, I’m fine with that - the house I grew up in was almost exclusively heated by wood). If humans ever manage to create a sustainable society, it will be because we develop technological solutions to environmental problems. True sustainability is only attainable if you have the ability to recycle everything you throw away. Carbon-neutrality is a lot easier if you have a large supply of clean power. Neither of these are things Williams can make a huge dent in now (except possibly by encouraging research projects), but we can still do what we can with the technology available to us.
If what you’re trying to imply is that global warming is a hoax or a mistake, then I think Morty disagrees with you. I can’t say what his objections might be with this particular agreement, but in general his actions have suggested that he considers human-caused climate change to be a reality that Williams does have a duty to confront.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:03 am
That last comment was me.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:24 am
David is right: there’s a long-standing tradition of institutional neutrality among American universities. It certainly makes sense that the college should remain above the fray in most political matters.
But as 10 points out, this logic unravels in domains where the college is, by its actions, affecting the world. Institutional neutrality is simply not an option. In the case of climate change, sticking to the status quo *is* a political statement.
Sometimes you really do have to choose sides.
A good historical analogy is the college’s decision to divest from companies with major interests in apartheid South Africa.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I’m not sure why this is being described as a “political.” The commitment seems to about developing a plan for the campus to become climate neutral; it doesn’t appear to be urging any particular policy. This is actually quite striking, given the proliferation of other joint statements by various groups that are calling on policy makers to do one thing or another. If you think it is political just by acknowledging the reality of global warming, Morty has already done this - http://www.williams.edu/resources/sustainability/earth_week_letter.php
Further, I understand that Stephen Johnson, the head of the EPA (who was appointed by President Bush), spoke at the recent summit and praised the signatories for their commitment, which seems to further underscore the fact that this isn’t a political statement.
Given Morty’s existing efforts to reduce emissions, I think it’s a shame that he isn’t participating in this initiative.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
My sole automobile is currently consuming gasoline at the approximate rate of 300 gallons per year - which must be far below that of the average auto. Consequently I certainly have energy credits which can be sold. What am I bid for them?
June 14th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Divestment?! Ah, sweet memories. Have I had a chance to tell my stories about leading the fight on campus against Divestment back in the day? No? Maybe next fall . . .
Don’t like those analogies? Why not? The reason that “Williams” contributes to global warming is because individual Ephs do things that so contribute. The same applies to domestic violence. Sad but true, there are Ephs involved with that. If the College as an institution has a responsibility to deal with one problem, why not with the other?
If domestic violence does not hit close enough to home for you, what about income inequality? Every time that the College helps someone like, say, Chase Coleman ‘97 to become wildly rich (either via the education it provides or the connections it facilitates) income inequality increases. Should the College do something about that?
Perhaps we need an American College & University Presidents Committment to Fight Income Inequality!Think of all the reports, studies, goals and timetables that such an exercise could generate . . .
Williams (and institutions like it) contribute much more to income inequality than to global warming. Why fight the latter but not the former?
Allowing the College to become involved in partisan disputes with no connection to its central mission is a mistake.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
a) I thought Williamstown was voluntarily participating in the Kyoto Accords.
b) And David, arguing that carbon emissions = domestic violence is a tad tendentious, not least because the college does operate a heating plant, fleet of vehicles, dorms, labs, etc. It isn’t all atomized individuals and their SUVs in the void.
c) maybe the College wind farm is a bad idea who’s time has come (again).
June 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
What Aidan said. The college has an environmental impact beyond the sum of individual student impacts.
As for income inequality, Williams does a huge amount to allow people from lower-income families to come here and improve their station in life. If you’re complaining that Williams grads tend to make more money than other people, what’s wrong with that? I believe you argued just the other day that Mr. Coleman earns so much money because he provides a valuable service, as do most Williams grads.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Hmm, “its mission of being the best college in the world”? What does this even mean?
Now if you said its mission was the have the largest endowment relative to the size of the student body, that’s something I can believe . . .