In order to properly “green” Bowdoin, consensus must be reached

Letter to the editor: Bowdoin must focus on divestment before endowment

To the Editor: I would have been satisfied if our meeting with President Mills yielded a commitment to formally consider our proposal to divest Bowdoin’s endowment from fossil fuels. Instead, we left with our heads full of “stay the course” rhetoric. President Mills doubts the claim of the Aperio Group, an investment management firm that published a report finding that divestment poses virtually no risk to endowment returns. I trust these facts, over the profit versus environmental responsibility paradigm, because my Bowdoin education does not accept convention as truth.

Letter to the editor: Bowdoin must lead in energy reduction

Back in the early ’80s we started to hear about the disturbing increase in carbon dioxide levels measured atop the Hawaiian volcano Mona Loa. Then not much later, fellow scientists talked increasingly about the implications of this increase, and the likely effects on our climate. Public awareness at the time was minimal at best, and even most climate scientists failed to adjust their living habits to provide an example toward a reduction in carbon dioxide emission. Times have certainly changed in that there is now far more awareness of the consequences of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Clearly we have far to go, but there is a change afoot. But this change will drag on slowly, too slowly, until there is a realization of a sense of personal responsibility.

Letter to the editor

In order to properly “green” Bowdoin, consensus must be reached

February 7, 2013

To the Editor:

In his job in the travel and tourism industry, Auden Schendler ’92 has clearly become well-versed in greenwashing.

At least enough, as the tone of his column, “Bowdoin is falling dangerously behind on climate change,” makes clear, to point out where an industry expert would deem the paint too thin.

Schendler’s column demonstrates two points extremely well. He is right that Bowdoin shouldn’t be hiding behind green slogans and should be taking action that will drive actual change.

Additionally, the text of his letter is a perfect example of how to use unbearably caustic words to destroy the possibility of consensus.

For consensus is exactly what Bowdoin needs right now. Take the two headline sustainability initiatives that have come up for debate recently: achieving carbon neutrality and divesting the endowment of petrochemical firms.

These causes are basically two sides of the same coin, and any coherent sustainability strategy would either accept or reject both of them, but at Bowdoin we find ourselves stuck in between.
Both initiatives sound great on paper: who doesn’t want to be able to parade around with a “100 percent renewable” sticker on their chest? And yet both are fundamentally flawed.

As Schendler helpfully points out in the only constructive suggestion in his letter, Bowdoin’s last 30 percent of carbon emissions are difficult and inefficient to mitigate.

While buying renewable energy certificates sometimes does fund otherwise impossible renewable energy development, a more well-thought-out approach would reinvest that money in longer-term sustainability projects that could cause real change in Brunswick, such as investing in local green businesses.

The proposal to divest the College’s endowment completely from fossil fuels suffers from a similar lack of perspective.

The policy completely ignores the huge positive impact that natural gas has as a low-emission transitional source of energy, and leaves open the question of what exactly counts as a “fossil fuel” company.

Deforestation is a massive contributor to climate change, so would the policy also bar the College from investing in timber futures, for example? If not, divestment would serve no material purpose.

And if so, what else would be prohibited? Would we divest from shipping firms because bunker oil is highly polluting?

Anyone wearing anything Made In China would be a hypocrite to agree.

Both policies would go a long way to demonstrating—at least in the headlines—the College’s devotion to sustainability, which makes them attractive.

While in my opinion they both are poorly conceived and wasteful uses of funds, I can understand why some support them, and I would be able to accept them if they were backed up by a coherent sustainability strategy.

Regardless of anyone’s personal opinion, the fact remains that any institution with a coherent sustainability strategy would either adopt or reject both measures.

Bowdoin is not there yet, and whichever way we swing, there needs to be agreement between stakeholders.

What the administration, alumni and students need to work on is building this consensus, not engaging in a self-destructive war of words, and that is where Mr. Schendler stepped over the line.

Sincerely,
Benjamin Ziomek ’13

Comments are permanently closed.