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.”