Wed 16 Jan 2008
The College is currently involved (big pdf) in a major planning process which focuses on the future to 2020.
President Schapiro has initiated a conversation with the multiple Williams constituencies to map out a vision for the College in 2020. While this process is just underway, we found his approach imaginative, timely, and inclusive. The senior management team and the trustees are comfortable using sophisticated models to predict evolving trends in higher education and these tools are used effectively to inform their planning. As the College moves forward
with this process over the next couple of years, it will develop plans to ensure that Williams is well placed to meet the challenges of 2020.
Nothing wrong with a little planning, although I have real doubts about what sorts of “sophisticated models” (read: Excel spreadsheets) are in use. But that’s not today’s rant.
I have heard that Morty and a large portion of the senior staff were just on (still on?) a boondoggle to England for some off-site discussion and planning relating to 2020. True? I have nothing against such trips, but don’t tell me that the College is really concerned about carbon emissions when it schedules meetings across the Atlantic that could happen just as well in Williamstown. Is it too late to buy some more offsets from Owl Feather War Bonnet Wind Farm? Just asking. Related rants.
If I were a member of TNG, I would make a big deal of this sort of hypocrisy.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Junkets are required to grease the self-centered. Also ordinarily they are expensive - carbon emissions aside.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
to be fair, David, these Excel spreadsheets might involve spiffy charts and macros
January 16th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Hypocrisy?
Hey, don’t mince words on account of your upcoming junket to Williamstown.
In fact, just to make a point, maybe you should ride your bicycle….you know, get one of those all-weather ponchos and off you go.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
It may be a shock to you, but not all people in on the discussion may live in the U.S.. Jill Stephens ‘77 was a key person several years ago and she lived in the UK.
If I had to choose, I’d rather have some imaginative planning that nails the future take place in the UK than poor planning that saves a few bucks and carbon molecules and takes place in Williamstown.
Yeah, yeah, I know, we shouldn’t have to choose, but cut the Trustees and Morty some slack.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
No slack forthcoming from this corner.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
The Aircraft would fly anyhow Dave, with or without the extra few seats taken by the Ephs. Your point, is … what?
I have spent about three months in England, coming and going. Good time. I would have recommended Spain, but they did not ask the townie.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Nastiest time of the year for the UK, I should think, unless they are hoping for post-Christmas sales on woolens. Some junket.
Agree with PTC, but they’ll probably get more done in the chilly UK than they would have in sunny Spain.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Without disagreeing with David’s point, I’ll give some defence of the ‘junket,’ though regular readers know my schtick:
As our brave planners pass through Heathrow, they will have to work to miss the large banners proclaiming the new nation of Wales. If any of them– perchance– understand a nit of Dutch or Flaams, they may come to understand that the joke about Belgium no longer existing is, in large part, not just a joke.
Throughout Europe and elsewhere, what we may be seeing is the emergence of new nations, and a new world order– and I am struck each time I hear someone say their dream is to emmigrate to Europe, not the United Stated. Blip, or fundamental change?
Ford withdraws from Mexico as Chinese automotive producers step in, backed by a political alliance between the ‘leaders’ of the nations; further south, a dictator masquerading as populist taunts the US as never before– by withdrawing oil– proclaiming, with the other nations of Latin America, a right of “self-determination” backed, evidently, by direct Chinese bankrolling of the Presidents– as China builds complex production and supply chain relationships with these nations, Africa, and elsewhere.
I can go on, but my point is that this world is different, politically, economically, strategically. I have no idea– well, a little– of what may be discussed in the UK, but planning Williams in 2020 requires some though not just to those Excel sheets, but to the world of 2020 and forward.
I thus might suggest a tour for these meetings: something like Krakow next, then Shenzhen, followed by Mexico City–
January 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I will note that Williams does have the Oxford program, which is a huge selling point to prospective students and which occupies a decent chunk of the junior class each year, so it is not shocking that once every [x] number of years it would behoove the powers that be to head across the pond ..
January 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Of course that justification is specious.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
1) First, can we start with transparency? I believe the meetings are starting now. Who is attending? What is the agenda? (I believe that all the attendees are Williamstown (or at least US) residents. So, contra Guy’s comment, there is no reason to go to the UK except that travel is fun!
2) Second, I have few problems with junkets. Indeed, I am taking one myself this week-end! The issue is hypocrisy. If you really believe that carbon emissions are a huge problem, then you should cut down on unnecessary travel. I am not claiming that Morty needs to live in a cave and ride a bicycle everywhere. We can all agree that, despite concerns with global warming, Morty still needs to fly lots of places on college business. But there is no good reason (again, if you are concerned with carbon emissions) that the College’s top administrators need to fly to England to have a conversation they could just as easily have in Hopkins Hall.
3) I won’t even get into the costs of the trip. Your alumni donations at work.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
David,
This seems like such a small thing to get worked up about. Travel for work is just a part of life. And none of us should be pointing fingers as to who is more, or less environmentally responsible…
More importantly, break a leg this weekend! I would personally love to hear you speak. But since I can’t, I am expecting a full report from Frank. And you, David should post your talk on EphBlog.
Did you, by the way, get the e-mail with my summary???!!!
January 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
As far as I am concerned, it is about the arrogance of authority.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I don’t believe the carbon costs of bringing the trustees to England (assuming they are not each flying on private jets, which is a sound assumption) are a whole lot higher than bringing the trustees to Williamstown. Both are so relatively small that the difference in carbon cost is not worrisome. Unlike you, David, the TNG is smart enough to save their limited lobbying power for issues of consequence.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
As I understand it, this meeting involves few (no?) trustees. (I could be wrong.) Instead, I know that senior Williams administrators (perhaps 5 or 10 folks) are the main/only participants. Why couldn’t they have chatted in Williamstown?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
@current eph:
Stated briefly, if the members of TNG believe that carbon emissions reduction are a significant goal, one thing they could do is influence the choice of carriers for such trips. You would have to confirm it by questioning the research, but recently constructed aircraft claim to produce 30-50% less carbon emissions than craft than are a decade or more old.
One could also aggregate the travel needs of the LACs, for instance, and bid them to providers on a cost-carbon basis. Such an effort might be price-competitive as well as profitable in the short term, and an interesting way to leverage yourselves into the transportation industry in the long-term.
As for the admin junket as presented by David, having just had a short round of talks with some charter companies about their excess and unused capacity problems, I’m confident that there’s a 50-50 chance you could find a charter company that would take 10 passengers direct from ALB or Pittsfield to a UK airport for roughly the same cost as commercial carriers.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:01 am
kthomas–my impulse is that it would take a significant amount of time and energy on the part of TNG to influence the administration to research carriers for administrative/trustee trips (to plan junkets around this seemingly complicated objective sounds like a horrible and potentially very expensive headache). Furthermore, my impulse is that the relative benefit of ensuring that the 10 or so travelers are flying on new aircraft is, well, pretty much nothing. I seems to be a similar argument that many anti-vegetarians use (one person becoming a vegetarian will have a 0 effect on global meat production). Obviously, the argument against vegetarianism isn’t universalisable, and to a certain extent, neither is the one against your lobbying proposal. The biggest difference is reflected by the way lobbying groups (like TNG) work…the marginal effect of TNG’s lobbying the college to replace its outdated power plant with a more efficient cogen plant is far greater than the marginal effect of TNG’s lobbying the administration to pursue a conscientious policy when it comes to their travels. If I had to guess, it would probably take similar amounts of student energy to accomplish either, and would use up similar amounts of administrative goodwill/willingness to compromise with TNG.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:33 am
currenteph:
For your consideration, my suggestion is based, in part, on the existence of assertions, such as those presented in current EU taxation discussions, that a single “average” transcontinental flight terminating in the Union produces, per passenger, roughly 50% of the average carbon emissions of each citizen of the Union per year. (This has also been stated as the ‘fact’ that, calculated somewhat differently, air transport in/through the EU represents approximately 50% of the total carbon emissions of the EU, and will to at least 2030 presuming [various other conditions]). There is evidently something about using 50%…
Some those assertions are questionable; indeed I make light of them, though not in jest. But I don’t believe I’m aware of anyone on the ‘environmentalist’ side of this arguing that air transport is not, in aggregate, responsible for 25% or more of world carbon emissions. Or in short: if carbon levels are the cause of the problem, without air transport, that problem would not exist.
Therefore, what I am suggesting is that, indeed, it it would be worthwhile to seriously consider, and attempt to calculate, the (marginal and non-marginal) costs/effect of TNG’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions, viz-a-viz potential strategies to reduce the College’s total net air travel-related impact, versus other, likely smaller, impacts, such as the cogen plant.
Or in short, the carbon impact of something like a ten-person trip to the UK is so high, that if you can take a 40% slice out of it, it is the biggest reduction you’re going to get for the effort.
To boot, I’d certainly pay an extra $100 to travel from San Francisco to ALB for reunion via a direct flight, with no security hassle and baggage claim waits, and in a 18-person turbojet with other alums, with more space and service than any common carrier airline offers in “First Class” — carbon aside. That the situation sounds “plush” does not mean that it might not be cheaper in both dollar and carbon terms.
I’m thus not suggesting that TNG ask ‘the administration’ to compromise: I’m suggesting that it is possible to use the market to create attractive value propositions that also achieve TNG’s stated goals, and that individuals such as those in the administration will choose those options if presented with appropriate explanation.
US emissions per capita from heating and other ‘local’ activities are, of course, somewhat higher than those of the EU– for quite a few reasons including that ‘the Greens’ in Europe have achieved many goals that TNG is advocating for, including far better building practices– but my guess would be that students living in dorm-scale facilities, and warmed by a cogen plant instead of residential/suburban dwelling-sized facilities, have average personal carbon ‘profiles’ smaller than the average US citizen, if not the average resident of the EU.
On the other hand of that, I would also guess that Williams’ students(/faculty/staff’s) travel by air, on average, is several times the US average, at the very least. I would not be surprised if we found that 80% of the carbon impact of the Williams community is due to air travel, ‘as it is commonly calculated.’
So my suggestion is that it might be worth someone’s while to try to make the same calculation as the EU Commissions: what is the ratio of the carbon impact of the air travel of the Williams community, versus that of all its other activities? (Expressed in the terms of measurement used by others).
One-to-two, one-to-one, two-to-one, four-to-one, or worse? How many Williams students fly for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Spring break? How many of their parents travel to Williams, by air? How many air trips does reunion generate?
What should we (er, “you”) do about that– to affect the air industry’s choices and reduce the impact? The EU’s suggestion is a tax on landing– by 2010, nearly $100US on each transcontinental RT.
My (counter-)suggestion boils down to: each time a group of Williams students/faculty/staff is traveling to a common destination in a group of 10 or more, it would certainly be more convenient for them to fly a direct point-to-point charter flight (at roughly equivalent price), with quite a bit more space than scheduled commercial aviation, no security lines, etc. If you shop this ‘job’ around, you have a 50-50 chance of finding a company that will do it.
Succeed in setting up this deal only ten times, for instance, and you have eliminated the equivalent of (non-air-travel) carbon emissions from 60 or 80 students. That is more than ‘marginal:’ that is a single-digit percentage reduction in the College’s total non-air-travel carbon impact.
Where or how are you likely to that impact, for so little cost, anywhere else?
Get good at it, scale this model over a year or two or three, spread it to other LACs that have similar travel patterns, and you will suddenly be making a significant impact– perhaps a few hundred times the reduction you might achieve in the first year– for only a few tens of times the effort. And you will have also have more than offset the emissions of the entire College, while placing yourself in control of a revenue stream that gives you a shot– just a shot– at building a position that actually allows you to impact the choices of the global aviation industry.
Heck, you might even find yourself trying to run an upstart airline, or some sort of transportation collective, or… some new form I can’t imagine.
Again, “for your consideration.”
January 17th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Ken,
Wow! You have a fine, fine mind, you lucky so and so.
That said, my family would be interested in say….5 to 6 of those round-trip cross country flights. And, I know several other families who would probably book the same.
And current eph:
While you are at it…someone should arrange for a regularly running shuttle service from Albany to Williamstown…the benefits for all would be great and there would be some moola to be made as well.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:45 am
You members of the elite are missing the larger, broader and consequently more important point: perks for the elite such as junkets have a demoralizing effect on the rank and file.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:35 am
My 5 to 6 round-trip tickets? That would be per year. And, I would pre-pay and also be willing to fork over a bit more…
And then, just to balance the “demoralizing effect” all these “elitist” arrangements would have on the “rank and file”, I would be willing to take said “r and f” for coffee once arriving in W.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Actually my name’s a bit misleading–I’m no longer a “current” eph (I graduated last year), so I’m actually not a member of TNG either. Ken–your post was fascinating…although I’m still having trouble believing that a 10 person direct charter flight is cheaper and more carbon-efficient than sticking those 10 people on slightly less direct jumbo commercial aircraft. Do you have any posts on that? Additionally, if what you say is true–that a handful of flights produces the same amount of waste as an inefficient cogen plant, then not just TNG but the environmentalist movement should possibly reset some of their priorities. However, that just doesn’t seem possible. I wonder if your argument is misled by the following possibilities:
–50% of an individual’s carbon output pales in comparison to the carbon output of organizations (which may not be included in the EU’s figures). The carbon output of Williams spread across the faculty, staff, and students, could be as much as 70-80% of their total (and in that case, their yearly air travel would only be 10-15% of their newly calculated total).
–the figure of 50% carbon output is heavily influenced by business travelers and other frequent fliers. Air travel very well could be 95% of the carbon output for 15% of all citizens, but only 20% for the remainder.
–the average citizen flies enough time per year (this could be affected by the above as well) that a single flight contributes fairly minimally to that individual’s total output (and in that case, TNG’s influencing of a single flight for 10 or so people, when spread across the roughly 3,000 members of the Williams community, has no meaningful effect).
–Europeans travel via air significantly more or produce significantly less other waste than Americans (I suspect both are likely to be true). If the average American flies half as frequently as the average European, and produces twice as much waste, then the percentage drops to 12.5%.
In response to FROSH mom, people have tried to start up a regular shuttle service to Albany several times. Ultimately, I think there simply is not enough demand during non-peak times (I would be surprised if more than 2-3 students on an average weekend goes to Albany).
January 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
@’currenteph’:
Quick thoughts:
– we really need some pie charts, don’t we? I could refer you to GreenPeace… or I could deflate my own bubble quite quickly by reviewing the claims out there, which range from 2% to a bit above the 50% “magic number…” but I take seriously the fact that UK and EU governments are imposing taxes based on these assumptions.
– I am stunned to look at the route coverage maps (which are also gages of activity) of the major airlines today, compared to when I was a student. In 1990, a few US cities had enough lines drawn to/from them to obscure the underlying landscape; today the lines on the route maps obscure most of the US;
–via anecdote: this Christmas season, every time I picked up someone at the airport in Nashville, I was counting how many Amish were on their incoming flights. “It’s not just business [travellers]: I doubt business is the driver.”
– As for supporting documents, I’ll see what of substance I can drum up: as for ephBlog 2.0, wouldn’t it be nice to have a facility where such “assets” could be easily inlined and attached?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
P.S. to that (as I can’t edit): Steve Case, among others, used to run that route from Williamstown to Albany. So there is another ‘internal logic’ at play here…
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I’m sure Frank will call this argument specious or something else, but you might at least consider that Morty was going to visit the Oxford program anyway and that a dean or two (including a former or future resident head of the program) also would be going. Add in the person already living in London and perhaps this made more sense - financially and environmentally.
This may not be true, perhaps Morty et al. sit up in their Hopkins Hall offices dreaming of ways to live large and depress the “rank and file” (although at Williams there aren’t many of those). I was probably one of two or three in my entry first year who hadn’t traveled extensively, so I was/am “rank and file” and such things would not have made me feel downtrodden in any manner. Before we assume the negative, how about getting at least MORE of the facts…I wouldn’t dare think we could get them all.
But if we’re going to complain about the waste at Williams there are better ways (starting with giant fancy brochures touting how much money has been raised along with our environmental initiatives).
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Rank and file? How about the College footing the entirety of the relatively minor bill for a March boondogle to Pinehurst, North Carolina for the women and men at Buildings and Grounds so that there they can get together for a week to discuss the future grooming and development of the Taconic Golf Course? No? How do you think they feel about being denied such a trip when the elites in Hopkins Hall are flying off to London at the College’s expense to do do something that they could easily do in Williamstown?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
“Do do” is right!