The Environmental Task Force presented to the Brown University Community Council on "Environmental Policy and Issues at Brown" nearly three weeks ago on Oct. 18. The Herald did not cover the presentation, nor did any publication on campus to my knowledge. Although The Herald ran an opinions column by Jacob Schuman '08 on international rising oil prices ("Oil prices are never coming down," Oct. 19), environmental and energy issues are much, much closer to home.
Point blank, Brown faces a shortfall of $3.6 million in its current energy budget. Before the ETF presentation, Elizabeth Huidekoper, executive vice president for finance and administration (not a member of the ETF herself), called for an immediate, aggressive energy policy toward reducing energy consumption across campus.
According to the follow-up e-mail from Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services David Greene, calculations for the current academic year indicate that the University's energy bill will increase by 50 percent over last year. Only 3 percent of that figure represents the increase in Brown's energy consumption from 2004-2005. In other words, the increase is largely due to the sudden and sharp rise in energy costs - costs that the University's budget did not take into account. To make up for the deficit, Brown will most likely be forced to divert resources from elsewhere. Academic programs, financial aid and staffing levels are all at risk. In order to minimize this risk, the e-mail calls for individual and collective action to reduce the amount of energy consumed on campus. Suggested actions include keeping a sweater on hand, setting computers to enter standby or sleep mode when at rest and turning off unused and unneeded lights.
Granted, the immediate economic impacts of the energy crunch Brown now faces merit the attention of students, faculty, staff and administrators alike. And as electrical consumption accounts for much of Brown's carbon emissions, a reduction in energy consumption means a reduction in Brown's environmental impact as well. But my fears regarding the new energy policies and practices are nevertheless multifold.
First, the newly released energy policy will only help in the short term. It does nothing to prevent Brown from running into exactly the same sort of scramble somewhere farther down the line. The University needs a long-term strategic energy plan with a diversified energy portfolio that includes a mix of renewable sources. Because renewable energy sources have more stable costs of production than fossil fuels, if Brown were to include renewable energy in its portfolio mix, it would be less susceptible to fluctuating energy costs.
Second, I fear that any success as a result of the University's new energy policy might put the conscience of the administration falsely to rest with regard to future energy crises.
But third, and perhaps most importantly, I fear that the current economic crunch will divert attention away from the environmental costs associated with energy production. Brown's energy consumption and related emissions have increased approximately 30 percent since 1991. Approximately 10 percent of this increase is attributed to an increase in the size of campus. With significant plans for growth within the next 10 years, and no concrete environmental policy to curtail rising carbon emissions, Brown's environmental footprint only promises to get bigger.
And to be honest, I am not sure whether the hard-line, economic approach Brown's senior administration assumes in the most recent campus-wide e-mail regarding energy policy - the "keep a sweater on hand" tactic - is the best way to reach out to students. Reminiscent of wartime propaganda, the message coerces where it could inspire.
How might Brown engage and educate students on how to participate in advancing energy conservation? Look to Yale University, which just this past Monday adopted a comprehensive 15-year strategic energy plan. With a strong energy conservation program and by investing in alternative energy sources, purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates and implementing onsite renewable energy demonstration projects, Yale aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 10 percent below their 1990 levels by the year 2020. According to Yale President Richard Levin, "For every 5 percent of reduction at residential colleges, the university will allocate renewable energy certificates to offset one-third of the electrical energy used by residential colleges."
Concrete actions are available to address the insecurity and speeding environmental degradation caused by an outmoded fossil-fuel energy system. Renewable energy certificates are the most immediate step Brown can take toward supporting clean energy. While RECs have no effect on the local power grid from which Brown gets its energy, they encourage the production of renewable energy. By purchasing RECs, Brown would displace the use of conventional fuels, such as coal, nuclear, oil and gas, from the regional or national electric grid.
Students, more than any other group on campus, will feel the effects if Brown fails to address the challenges with regard to energy production, consumption and related carbon emissions. This is our future. A short-term energy policy isn't going to cut it.
Jenna Horton '08 wants to do something about this.
