Alex Prahl

Dr. Marx

9 June 2009

 

The President’s Climate Commitment: Sustainability as More Than Just a Buzzword

 

            As a student at Cal Poly State University, it is impossible to avoid the newly popular “go green” trend. Water filters have replaced plastic water bottles, lights out is now a daily practice in the dorms, and recycling is a way of life. Throughout the past few years, issues of sustainability have slowly begun to creep up into classrooms and the news. Here at Cal Poly, it is no surprise that bio-diesel cars own the streets and reusable grocery bags are sold in the University Union every Thursday. However, I am more interested to know what the university is doing on a school-wide level in efforts to join the environmentally friendly movement. Through research I have discovered Cal Poly’s organic farm, an increased number of sustainability courses, and that the campus has hosted a number of sustainability conferences. Obviously the university is on board, but why then, I question, has President Baker refused to sign the President’s Climate Commitment?

            The President’s Climate Commitment is a national invitation to universities to join the fight against global warming. Specifically, the program aims to “eliminate emissions and integrate sustainability into the curriculum.” (President’sclimatecommitment.org). The Commitment emphasizes the ideal of going “climate neutral.” Climate neutrality can be explained as having no net greenhouse gas emissions. The founders of the President’s Climate Commitment propose reducing greenhouse gas emissions on campuses as much as possible, as well as using carbon offsets and various other measures in order to reach this.

An increased focus on global warming is imperative if we as a society hope to slow or reverse damage that has already occurred to the climate. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s official website, if “we continue to emit greenhouse gases at or above the current rate, we will see an average global temperature increase of 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 and greater warming after that.” (EPA). In the past century alone, the global temperature has raised about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, demonstrating the possible devastation of a 3 to 7 degree increase. Despite political debate, propaganda, and widespread scientific dispute, it is imperative that today’s society takes the appropriate measures to avoid the devastation of tomorrow’s.

            Reverting back to my original question, why has Cal Poly not become a signatory of the Climate Commitment? The main reason for inaction is President Baker’s disagreement with obligations involved in the Commitment. So what exactly do signatories commit to? According to the official website, they sign to eliminate their campus’s emissions within a reasonable time period. Along with this, they must set up some mechanism (team, task force, etc.) to guide their campus’s progress, make a complete inventory of emissions within one year, create and implement a “climate neutral plan”, integrate sustainability into the curriculum, and make all related documents available to the public. Simply put, it is a promise to make and use a long-term plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from one’s university. I am no authority on the matter, but this does not appear too daunting an accomplishment.

            “Reversing global warming is the defining challenge of the 21^st century,” states the introductory page to the President’s Climate Commitment. Supporters claim that this alone should be the motivating factor for campuses. Along with helping to improve the climate and reverse this generation’s greatest threat, signing the Commitment has other benefits. For example, since forming a partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, signatories have been granted access to $5 billion in financing toward energy efficient programs. (President’sclimatecommitment.org). Also, becoming a signatory improves a university’s competitive standing giving it an advantage in finding better students and faculty, allowing for new sources of funding, and maximizing local support. Most importantly, programs implemented generate return revenue that would otherwise be unavailable.

Higher Education has a moral responsibility to rise to this global challenge. No other institution has the same abilities, resources, or diversity of skill. In an interview with Michael Multari, Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Planning, he offered that “…methods for realistically achieving neutrality [are] quite uncertain,” and “…committing to something you aren’t sure is do-able, …is intellectually dishonest.” He supports the claim that Cal Poly is already doing its part in the go-green campaign, stating: “At Cal Poly…we are working to achieve goals of AB 32 (The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) which are already quite ambitious. If we can do that, we may be able to focus on full neutrality in the more distant future.” Multari poses a great dilemma: do we as a university gamble losing our reputation through lack of action? Or do we become “intellectually dishonest” by signing the Presidential Climate Commitment? In my opinion, Higher Education, Cal Poly specifically, is at a greater risk in refusing to join the Commitment - a risk of lessening one’s reputation, losing support, and missing out on future opportunities.

            To date, 637 universities and colleges from around the nation have signed the Presidential Climate Commitment. Cal Poly is not one of them. Students, faculty, and community members are discontented by President Baker’s verdict and are urging him to rethink his decision. In a Mustang Daily article, one student proclaimed: “In order for Cal Poly to keep its No. 1 ranking…climate sustainability has to become a priority.” (Hall). Five CSU schools have already signed the document including Cal Poly Pomona, San Francisco, Monterey Bay, Chico, and Bakersfield. To add to the list, the entire UC system has also become a signatory. Cal Poly is one of the last California schools to not sign the Commitment. Advocates are not motivated by peer pressure, but rather the necessity to support the university’s moral obligation to expand research and efforts toward sustainability.

            Despite rumors of malice by some, President Baker has plausible reason for his controversial decision. First, he believes and has proposed to CSU chancellor Reed that the entire CSU system sign as a whole, like the UC system has done. (Empower Poly Coalition). This would be a more favorable option rather than leaving it an individual campus decision. Second, President Baker reported in a Board of Directors meeting “…Collecting the necessary greenhouse gas emissions data could cost the university between $1 and $10 million per year.” (Hall) and Cal Poly does not currently have adequate funds to support such a program.

            Hoping to somewhat appease his opposition, as a follow-up to his decision, President Baker released a detailed statement in regards to Cal Poly’s current achievements and future goals toward climate neutrality. The list includes proposals such as bettering education about global warming and a possible Bachelor’s degree in sustainability. (Hall). In addition, the statement discussed developments following Cal Poly’s endorsement of the Talloires Declaration. As a result, Cal Poly has “decreased consumption of natural gas by 30%...and expanded the campus’s recycling program to a level where 60% of solid waste is now diverted from landfills.” (Hall). In all, it seems since his official decline, President Baker has focused on what has already been done instead of what could potentially be done.

            It is difficult to comprehend why a leading university like Cal Poly would deny the chance to join an effort such as this. Logically, signing the commitment is a great decision that would help the school indefinitely. Also, as a national program, the Commitment has indisputable credibility. Not to mention the fact that its purpose is morally sound and environmentally focused – another plus in today’s society. Finally, it bothers me personally to know that the main reason my university is not a signatory is because of possible funding problems. If funding is such an issue, how did the administration manage to amass the more than hundred million of dollars going toward the Recreation Center expansion, University Union expansion, and installment of synthetic turf in the Sports Complex? Constituents at every level would benefit from adopting the Climate Commitment: students would be further educated in matters of sustainability, faculty would be able to explore new greener alternatives in and out of the classroom, the community would benefit from lower emissions, and Cal Poly would be doing its part in the fight against global warming. As a matter of moral, ethical, environmental, and social obligation, Cal Poly needs to live up to its “learn by doing” standard. In the words of student Blake Hudelson, “sustainability must become more than just a buzzword on campus.” It is my opinion that President Baker needs to reconsider his decision and sign the President’s Climate Commitment.

 

           

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

"The Commitment." American College and University President's Climate Commitment. 25

May 2009 <presidentsclimatecommitment.org>.

Empower Poly Coalition. "Open Letter: Cal Poly CAN..." Mustang Daily [San Luis Obispo].

Mustang Daily. 22 Apr. 2008. Cal Poly State University. 26 May 2009

<http://mustangdaily.net/openletter:calpolyCAN/>.

"Fall 2007 Progress Report." Academic Senate Sustainability Curriculum. Cal Poly. 25 May

2009<www.calpoly.edu/~acadsen/reports/AcademicSenateReports/Fall07/sustainability

F07.pdf>.

"Frequent Questions: Science." Climate Change. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 25

May 2009 <www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html>.

Hall, Jennifer. "Baker Declines to Sign Commitment Again." Mustang Daily [San Luis Obsipo].

Mustang Daily. 22 Apr. 2008. Cal Poly State University. 26 May 2009

<http://mustangdaily.net/bakerdeclinestosigncommitmentagain/>.

Hudelson, Blake. "Don't Lose 'Best in the West'" Mustang Daily 22 Apr. 2008. Cal Poly State

University. 26 May 2009 <http://mustangdaily.net/Don'tlosebestinthewest/>.

"Introduction." Clean Air- Cool Planet. 25 May 2009 <www.cleanair-coolplanet.org>.

Multari, Michael. Personal Interview. 4 June 2009.

"The President's Climate Commitment: Good Intentions, Real Obstacles, Possible Solutions."

UC/CSU/CCC Sustainability Conference 2008. 25 May 2009

<http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/susconf89>.