Poi responded to my post - so I will continue the dialogue. I guess my greatest concern about the commitment is its orientation. I am skeptical about the scope and direction of the science that makes a series of apocalyptic projections based on models. Please note I was trained as an economist so my scientific knowledge is limited - but I worry about the intensity of the debate. Malthusian projections are always outsmarted by ingenuity. While I believe there are good reasons to be careful with resources, regardless of the underlying science, I believe the way that the issue of global warming has been brought to us has taken on aspects which I think are simply antithetical to the way a university should function. One of the two places I heard from on Monday who had rejected Cortese's (and yes I object to Cortese's messianic approach) is one of the nation's premier places for discussion of ideas (it also has a reputation as being left of center on the spectrum).
Bjorn Lomborg's latest book (Cool It) makes two important points. First, he believes that the projections on global warming are subject to a lot of questions. The trendlines are simply wrong. But second, and more importantly, even if the conclusions on the data are correct, there are a much better set of efficacious responses to the problems.
From my reading of the commitment all of the steps taken on page 2 of the document start with the premise that there is only one response to the issues of global warming. For example, "Within one year of signing this document, begin purchasing at least 15% of our institution's electricity consumption from renewable sources." Or "Establish a policy committee that supports climate and sustainability shareholder proposals at companies where our institution's endowment is invested." Why 15%? Does the commitment mean that EVERY shareholder proposal that is labeled that way should be supported? In the case of this issue, where I believe some scientists have gone well beyond the actual science - a one best way approach is inappropriate.
Finally, to the two offers that the Commitment makes for campuses (the loan fund from the Clinton fund and the information interchange). The Clinton fund is but one of many alternative financing mechanisms available to most campuses. If the value of the savings are as large as I think they are for energy rich proposals (retrofits for example) there is plenty of low interest money available. On the second, colleges and universities have spent a good part of the last decade being bashed on 'college costs' and there are a number of groups across the country (including the one that I was at on Monday) who are working very hard at thinking about how to use their resources better - that was the very point of the discussion on Monday in relation to one initiative.
I am still a skeptic about the Climate Commitment based on both a concern for the underlying science and because of the one size fits all approach (at least one set of responses to a complex set of issues) but appreciate the interchange with Poi.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Thanks for responding again! I understand your position better now.
I don't mean to belabor the point, but I think the accusation that the climate commitment takes "one size fits all approach" is really unfounded. The commitment seems to have been designed with a great deal of flexibility in mind. As I mentioned previously, each signatory develops their own institution-specific plan for carbon neutrality and chooses their own target date for achieving it based on their specific circumstances.
As to the list of steps you mention, signatories are agreeing to undertake just 2 of 7 steps listed while the more comprehensive plan is being developed. Signatories get to choose the steps that make the most sense for them. I'm not sure why 15% was chosen as the renewable energy threshold, but it seems like a reasonable first step toward climate neutrality that doesn't set the bar too high or too low. As for the shareholder proposal step, there is an accompanying implementation guide on the website that answers your question. As I understand it, a signatory that chooses to take step would form an advisory committee that reviews and makes recommendations on shareholder initiatives related to global warming. It doesn't mean that the institution must vote a certain way on every resolution on global warming.
Anyway, It sounds like you were hoping to wrap up this conversation, so I guess we'll just have agree to disagree on this one. Thanks again for the dialog.
Post a Comment