With the recent release of the Bowdoin Blueprint for Carbon Neutrality, sustainability is again a buzzword on campus—or at least on posters and in the Student Digest. The College's plan is effective, but the methods it uses highlight a problem with many current modes of environmental thought: it is impossible for every institution and household in the U.S. to reach carbon neutrality using the same methods that Bowdoin plans to use.

There is simply not enough renewable power, and perhaps even renewable potential, to go around. However, the modern environmental movement does not seem to realize this. Mainstream environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace are screaming out in support for unrealistic plans which are rooted on the unrealistic expansion of unreliable energy sources. Groups such as "350" just add to the noise, without laying out any plans for how to reduce emissions. To save the earth, facts are needed, not just the repetition of ridiculous, environmental dogma.

First, the Bowdoin Blueprint. The route to carbon neutrality laid out in the document attacks the issue from multiple directions: Bowdoin plans to increase campus energy conservation efforts, install renewable power sources on campus, encourage students and staff to use less energy and renew the College's vehicle fleet. The greatest amount of carbon will be offset, however, through the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). Indeed, without RECs it will be all but impossible for Bowdoin to reach carbon neutrality.

But what is an REC? At its most basic, an REC is proof that a mega-watt hour of energy has been generated using "green" methods. By purchasing such credits, Bowdoin is essentially giving money to the power companies which produce the energy (the credits are unrelated to the cost of the actual electricity the college uses).

That's it. The College is not actually eliminating emissions, it is only paying a company so that Bowdoin can say that the emissions it eliminated now belong to the College; this, on paper, will make the College carbon-neutral.

Now, don't get me wrong, this is a fine method of making Bowdoin carbon-neutral. It is foolish to assume that the College could actually reduce its emissions to zero. The problem with this approach comes when more and more organizations want to take the same route. Only about 11 percent of American electricity is now produced through renewable sources, meaning that there is an extremely limited supply of RECs.

Clearly, in order to actually make an environmental impact, the percentage of energy generated through "green" methods is going to have to increase dramatically. RECs are an attempt to create incentives for companies to install more renewable power stations; however, in order for the entire country to go carbon-neutral, many more sources of power are needed.

In this respect, the U.S. is lucky. It is possible that the country has enough renewable resources to power itself, unlike most other developed countries, whose population density and northern locations make it physically impossible (even assuming perfect economic conditions) for them to power themselves in a "green" manner.

However, two favorites of environmentalist groups, photovoltaic cells (PV) and wind power, are utterly unreliable, even if the country does have huge wind and solar potential.

A power grid with such stations as its backbone would hardly be functional when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining at its brightest. Hydroelectric plants, another favorite, don't have these issues, but almost all great rivers have already been dammed. Also, there are the issues of habitat and home destruction when new dams are built. The plans drawn up by most environmental groups rely upon the massive expansion of such power stations, and thus are not realistic.

Greenpeace is particularly impressive in this regard. Its newest energy plan places PV and wind power in the spotlight, making them responsible for around a third of total energy production. And yet, the report's only reference to the unreliability of these sources amounts to a paragraph which basically says, "We'll, uh, use batteries or something, or build reservoirs to store power." Not to mention, of course, that many of the batteries which would be used for such large-scale applications contain toxic compounds, the extraction of which environmental and human-rights groups have protested against in the past. Plus, who do you think is going to show up to protest the creation of those new reservoirs?

So, if we all wanted to make ourselves carbon-neutral by purchasing RECs, where would the energy come from? Despite this issue, there are some interesting options on the table. Solar thermal can store energy for when it's needed; geothermal, even though it is not technically renewable due to the slow rate of heat propagation through the Earth, is an interesting option; and the various forms of wave and tidal energy on the table could all could be solutions.

But solar thermal and geothermal need to be placed in hotspots and linked to civilization through high-voltage power lines, and oceanic energy requires cables on the seabed. Environmental groups have, in the past, opposed the construction of both types of infrastructure.

In addition, there are huge technical issues with all of these methods that keep them from being ready for the prime-time.

The College is doing an admirable job in trying to make itself carbon neutral. But if the efforts of institutions such as Bowdoin are going to be mirrored by society at large, more clean sources of power are needed. If environmental groups really want to contribute to this, they need to refocus themselves on the facts, or at the very least present a cohesive front.

Bizarre standpoints are present across the spectrum of environmental causes. From groups' rejection of nuclear power, which is the only safe, minimal-emission form of energy that is currently available to protests against the undersea cables necessary for offshore wind, it is almost impossible to find a logical viewpoint in the doctrine of many environmental groups.

So before you donate to Greenpeace, or show up at an environmental rally, think about exactly what you are supporting. Yes, the environment does need protecting, but endorsing bizarre, illogical viewpoints does nothing to further the cause.

Benjamin Ziomek is a member of the Class of 2013.