More than 400 institutions have signed the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, Yet many prominent institutions, including some that have made substantial efforts toward sustainability, have not.
Most of the nonsigning colleges contacted by The Chronicle doubt that the ultimate goal of the commitment — climate neutrality, or eliminating the effects of greenhouse gases — is feasible, but they also cite other reasons for not signing.
Here are four colleges that have not signed the commitment, and their rationales:
Colorado College: “I’m not keen on signing a pledge to do certain things when I don’t know what that entails,” says Richard F. Celeste, president of the college. “If we make a commitment like that, we have to deliver on it.”
Colorado College would face some stiff challenges to becoming climate neutral. Because the college is located in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, students, professors, and athletes generate a lot of emissions just getting to and from the college. The institution is hiring a consultant to measure emission sources.
The college is already buying some green power — up to 15 percent comes from wind sources — and the college is considering buying more, Mr. Celeste says. “We’re going to move forward” in reducing carbon emissions, he adds, “but we’re going to move forward in ways we can document and feel confident about the allocation of resources.”
Reed College: Colin Diver, president of the college, says a sustainability committee was established there in the past year. Its first task is to study the climate commitment and what it would cost, and advise the college whether to sign it. “I didn’t want to get in front of that process,” Mr. Diver says.
The pledge raises other worries, too. Reed College has a strict policy for “political neutrality,” Mr. Diver says, which might prevent him from signing. “We don’t make symbolic gestures around here,” Mr. Diver says. “If we were to sign this thing and it turned out to be not in our best interests, narrowly defined, and it was simply good for the planet, we would be making a political statement.”
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities: President Robert H. Bruininks has not made a decision about signing yet, though he has received a report on the pros and cons of the pledge from faculty and staff advisers.
Deborah L. Swackhamer, interim director of the university’s Institute on the Environment, says she is not sure the university could achieve climate neutrality. More than 70 percent of the university’s power comes from coal, she says.
The commitment also asks colleges to make climate neutrality part of the curriculum, which is not something the president can do. “The president has absolutely no control over the curriculum,” which is set by faculty members, Ms. Swackhamer says. “So some of these things he would be promising to do, he can’t promise.”
Williams College: Stephen P. Klass, the vice president for operations, says the college has not discussed the pledge enough to make a decision about signing, but has already made commitments on its own. “We don’t need the additional leverage of an external document and external principles to guide our culture here,” Mr. Klass says.
This year, Williams pledged to reduce its carbon emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 — a goal Mr. Klass describes as challenging but achievable. “From 1991 to 2005, our energy use has grown by 50 percent, and our built environment has grown 21 percent,” he says, “so we have our work cut out for us.”
http://chronicle.com Section: Money & Management Volume 54, Issue 16, Page A18
