Poi responded that "I'm also not sure why you think the initiative is "clearly political" as it seems to be focused exclusively on voluntary action." The writer also suggested that many campuses took a deliberative approach to making their (the writer used there) decision. Fine. My point was pretty clear and different. I believe that there are many reasons why a campus should reduce its use of energy and improve its environmental practices - with or without the joint project sponsored by Cortese. As the representative from one campus said - his campus had not signed on because the statement did not seem to be in conformity with the mission of the college. The other CFO who spoke suggested that his campus has some pretty well developed campus policies that were a) developed on that campus and which b) do not fit exactly with the Campus Commitment. Obviously any campus that wants to join in the parade should to that.
I did not ascribe that every campus took the decision on a knee jerk basis - but it is clearly easier on campuses today to simply support the commitment without thinking more carefully about the broader set of issues. In the original post I clearly was supportive of one of the dissenting campus' initiatives and of the suggestions of the investment banker. What I was objecting to was the Cortese effort, which I believe to be flawed.
Emeritus Biology Professor at UCSB, Daniel Botkin, said on a recent podcast of Econtalk that a good deal of the discussion of many science issues including global warming has taken on the characteristics of a "civil religion" - I believe that to be true. In some key issues one position is taken as gospel all others are taken in heresy. Bodkin's point is a good one - he is a distinguished scientist. In a recent article for the WSJ he argued "The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis. " Until that trend is reversed many campuses across the country are likely to sign on to things like the Cortese pledge without taking the care that they should to think about the broader issues facing campuses and the greater society. That broader point should not be lost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Thanks for responding! I appreciate the dialog.
I'd like to understand more specifically why you think the commitment is flawed. From your posts, it seems like your not entirely convinced that global warming is a pressing problem, but even if it is, you don't think the commitment is the right response. Is that an accurate understanding of your perspective?
I don't see much point in arguing about whether global warming is a pressing problem because there are plenty of other forums for that. I'm more interested in why you think the commitment isn't an appropriate response.
You seem to really dislike this Cortese fellow, but there must be more to it than that. He's far from the only person involved anyway - according to the website, the initiative is governed by a steering committee made up of presidents.
The CFO's suggestion that his school didn't sign on because they are doing something different doesn't really make sense to me. One thing that my campus appreciated about the initiative was the flexibility it provides - each signatory sets their own target for achieving carbon neutrality, and develops an institution-specific plan for getting there. Given this flexibility, it's hard to see what activities a school could be doing on global warming wouldn't fit.
I also think that there are real benefits to collective action. The commitment creates a mechanism for schools to share resources and experiences so they can learn from one another. Also, by joining together, signatories can better leverage support. For example, the signatories have entered into a partnership with the Clinton Climate Commitment that will make $5 billion in financing for energy efficiency retrofit projects available.
Also I don't mean to be a jerk, but your original post really did seem to say that all of the signatories had made the decision to sign on a knee jerk basis. The post referenced "those 400+ campuses who knee-jerked onto Cortese's latest campaign." I'm glad that you now seem to be acknowledging that this isn't a fair generalization.
Post a Comment