Wednesday, February 13, 2019// The Statement
6B

The University does not count scope 
3 emissions in its measurements, and 
neither do other institutions; this is 
the standard procedure for emissions 
measures. But during the extraction, 
storage and transportation of natural 
gas, methane — a greenhouse gas — 
leaks into the atmosphere and warms 
the planet. These emissions fall under 
scope 3 and are thus not considered 
when calculating emissions reduc-
tions. This means the reductions are 
being measured without considering 
the life-cycle environmental impact 
of the natural gas that the University 
uses. Because of this, Simon expressed 
frustration with the lackluster impact 
of the Central Power Plant upgrade.
“For a university our size, with an 
$11 billion endowment and some of 
the greatest intellectual power on the 
planet, we should have nailed that 
target,” Simon said. “We should have 
moved beyond that target.”
Proponents of the plan say the 
upgrades will reduce emissions and 
give the University time to consider 
renewable energy sources.
“It is important in the view of the 
committee to establish concrete plans 
for alternate fuels for this facility in 
the longer term, and/or ways to offset 
its emissions,” the Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction Committee’s report reads. 
“It will also be important for the uni-
versity to be clear that this investment 
is part of a transition toward carbon-
free alternatives.”
Simon noted the University has 
made negligible progress on finding 
significant long-term renewable ener-
gy sources. When asked about the Uni-
versity’s progress in this search, Berki 
said there are “currently no plans” 
for future sustainability measures 
at the Central Power Plant. Accord-
ing to Berki, the University’s plan 
for renewables in the future is to buy 
more renewable energy credits, which 
would technically reduce the Universi-
ty’s emissions by paying for the use of 
renewable energy generated and used 
elsewhere. But according to the Green-
house Gas Reduction Committee’s 
report, this kind of action “is unlikely 
to be viewed as the action of a climate 
leader or to engage the campus com-
munity in the vision and implementa-
tion of GHG reduction.”
Schlissel, for his part, has stated the 
administration’s priority is forming a 
specific technical plan before making 
a pledge for carbon neutrality. Previ-
ously, he said he believes the Univer-
sity will be better placed to carry out 
its goal if it starts with a complete plan 
rather than setting an arbitrary dead-
line.

“I don’t know how we’re 
going to get there yet. So what 
good does it do for me to put out 
a statement that says I’m going 
to do something on a certain day 
if I don’t know how I’m going to 
do it?” Schlissel said in an inter-
view with The Daily in October. 
“We want to do it in a way that 
other organizations can follow 
what we do and become carbon 
neutral themselves.”
Weaverdyck, however, said 
he believes the University has 
already missed its opportunity 
to be a leader in tackling climate 
change. Both he and Bishop 
think methods for reaching car-
bon neutrality are in no short 
supply and that the University 
merely needs to follow the path 
of other similar institutions that have 
already made progress toward similar 
goals.
“The problem, historically, has not 
been in generating those technical 
plans,” Bishop said. “The University of 
Michigan is a top-tier research insti-
tute. We have had committees come 
up with these plans before. We have 
the skills. We have the resources. The 
problem has been not committing the 
resources and not having any reason to 
do so (in the absence of a public goal).”
Simon, Bishop and Weaverdyck all 
expressed approval for the climate pol-
icies of certain schools similar to the 
University. They singled out Stanford 
University; Michigan State University; 
University of California, Berkeley; the 
University of Illinois and Ohio State 
University for particular praise.
In Simon’s view, one of the drivers of 
these schools’ success is people in posi-
tions of power who can make the nec-
essary change at the university level. 
This is a view shared by Weaverdyck 
and Bishop, who believe the absence 
of a high-level administration official 
dedicated to tackling environmental 
policy conveys a lack of interest in the 
area from University leaders.
“We think it has to do with a dif-
fusion of accountability and respon-
sibility,” Weaverdyck said. “There’s 
nobody put in charge. When you don’t 
have an individual who’s high up and 
who’s accountable to that and have 
them have a clear target or a goal that 
they’re appointed to help meet, then 
nobody really knows what we’re aim-
ing for.”
Simon also said he believes the 
administration’s focus has been in 
the wrong places, which has hindered 
development of a more comprehensive 
climate plan.
“What really has limited our abil-

ity to make progress is the absence of 
people who are progressive thinkers,” 
Simon said. “I think for the admin-
istration, it hasn’t been an issue they 
seem to be concerned with.”
Members of CAM believe the Uni-
versity’s reluctance to join any of the 
nationwide academic environmental 
coalitions is evidence of this. These 
organizations work to foster collabo-
ration between schools and help those 
schools become more sustainable in 
the long term. They include the Cli-
mate Leadership Network and Ameri-
can College & University Presidents’ 
Climate Commitment, which inspired 
the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 
set by Ohio State University and doz-
ens of other colleges.
Simon said he believes current Uni-
versity policy is hypocritical in some 
respects. He said he sees a school that 
teaches its students extensively about 
the dangers of climate change and the 
threat it poses to human civilization, 
but neglects to take significant action 
and demonstrate its resolve to combat 
that threat.
“We can’t continue to preach a mes-
sage in our classrooms that climate 
change is today’s civil rights move-
ment and yet not do anything at all to 
mitigate our effect on climate,” Simon 
said. “To be honest with you, if I were 
a student, I would be confused and 
depressed.”
This 
sentiment 
is 
shared 
by 
Weaverdyck and Bishop. Members of 
CAM have emphasized in their mes-
saging that colleges — particularly 
large and well-funded elite research 
institutions — are uniquely well placed 
to be leaders when it comes to environ-
mental policy. Though the individual 
impact of a school’s emissions is small 
when compared to global emissions, 
the University can set an example for 

active and intellectually rigorous cli-
mate action and aid other institutions 
in the fight.
“There’s so much well-informed 
consensus on precisely how cata-
strophic the impacts of climate change 
can be,” Bishop said. “It isn’t a question 
anymore of if people should be doing 
something about it. The University is 
in a position to address what is essen-
tially the defining problem of right 
now.”
“Frankly, 
if 
the 
University 
of 
Michigan can’t do this, then how 
can we expect anybody to do this?” 
Weaverdyck said. “This should be the 
easiest thing for this institution over 
any institution, given our resources, 
given our understanding, given our 
mandate. This should be the lowest 
hanging fruit.”
Above all, members of the cam-
pus environmental community have 
expressed a supreme disappointment 
with the University’s policies. They 
see it as a shortcoming not merely in 
addressing the issue, but in staking a 
claim as one of the foremost universi-
ties in the world and a true leader in 
higher education.
“If you look at the intellectual 
power we have across campus, among 
our faculty, staff and students, and 
you compare us to other universities, 
we’re so far behind (in combatting cli-
mate change) that it’s embarrassing,” 
Simon said. “You don’t do it because 
the shame game makes you look bad. 
You do it because you claim to be the 
world’s best university and a university 
that is committed to making a positive 
impact for our global society. Scientific 
consensus is that we need to mitigate 
humans’ effect on the climate. And as 
the University of Michigan, we should 
be leading that. We shouldn’t be fol-
lowing others.”

From Page 5B

“We can’t continue to preach a 
message in our classrooms that 
climate change is today’s civil rights 
movement and yet not do anything at 
all to mitigate our effect on climate,” 
Simon said. “To be honest with you, if 
I were a student, I would be confused 
and depressed.”

