All members of the Washington U. community, whether or not they know it, have experienced the University’s efforts to “go green.” From the new single-stream recycling system employed in receptacles campus-wide, to dual-flushing toilets in the newer bathrooms, to the initiatives of student groups such as the Burning Kumquat, the changes are apparent across campus.
But how is the University actually faring on its quest toward sustainability? A recent ranking list released by the Sierra Club’s Sierra Magazine on Aug. 16 shows that the University ranks 43rd among other colleges and universities in the nation. Green Mountain College in Vermont, the University of Washington and Stanford University all rank higher.
The sustainability rankings are determined by 10 calculated factors, such as energy supply, efficiency, food and transportation. The University does well on the majority of these categories. The University received an eight out of the possible 10 in the “academics” for recent readjustments in the environmental studies program. The University also received a nine out of 10 for its commitment to improving transportation, specifically the bus and light-rail train systems through the promotion of the sales tax measure Proposition A, as well as improved bike lanes.
“I think the rankings demonstrate that we are very strong in some areas particularly food and transportation,” said junior Arielle Klagsbrun, president of Green Action. “It’s been really great to see Wash. U. improve over the past few years on those aspects, but the rankings also demonstrate that we have a lot to do on the part of our energy source.”
Indeed, the University’s energy source is its Achilles’ heel in the rankings. The University gets 76 percent of its energy from carbon-rich coal, only a slight improvement from the 83 percent that Missouri uses as a state. While 19 percent of the University’s energy is nuclear, that number pales in comparison to the numbers at the more nuclear-dependent colleges of the Northeast and the highly hydroelectric West Coast, which reflects in the Sierra Club rankings.
Klagsbrun also noted the University’s lack of transparency in its investments, worrying that the University is sinking money into coal companies like Peabody and Arch Coal. She was also concerned that CEOs from Ameren serve on the board of trustees.
“I think the next big barrier is making sure that we are not using a violent energy form,” Klagbrun said. “I think we have the potential as a leading research university and one of the best universities in the U.S. to be leaders in where we get out energy from and make sure that we are looking to renewables first.”
Senior Peter Murrey, another member of Green Action, encourages students to call on the University to make some “real change.” Murrey would like Wash. U. to become more of a voice in the St. Louis community for sustainability by making what he called necessary investments in renewable-energy research and initiatives. Murrey admits that while he is proud of the advances Wash. U. has made in many areas, he simply “cannot consider our school sustainable as long as we use coal,” calling the administration’s current energy plan “short-sighted.”
“While it’s great to save money and be clean at the same time, if we want to be morally right in this environmental crisis we will have to shell out more money, because the cheapest energy around sometimes isn’t morally right,” Murrey said. “If it emits carbon, it’s not right for the future.”