The Story
Green: Hopefully not the New Black
I am sitting in my dorm room right now, finishing up a take-out lunch that I got from the Sadler Center. A few minutes ago, when I took a sip of orange soda from my disposable plastic cup, I noticed the white lettering on the side that declared:
"This environmentally sustainable cup is made entirely from plants."
Naturally, I began to wonder why the cup wasn’t green as a result of its exclusively vegetative composition, or why it didn’t look more “leafy.” Then I considered eating a piece to see if it tasted organic -- before my roommate walked in and asked me what I was doing.
And if that wasn’t a step too far, I then went to the Web site of the cup’s manufacturer, Fabri-Kal. There, I discovered that “Greenware® cold drink cups and lids are a line of crystal clear, American made premium serviceware manufactured from NatureWorks® PLA biopolymer, a resin currently derived entirely from plants.”
To finish off the meal, I pulled out the Goldfish crackers that I crammed into one of those Styrofoam bowls that everyone uses for snacks and desserts.
Oops!
There goes my environmentally friendly lunch.
Thus is the problem with so much of the Green movement -- both here at the College and at large. Strides are taken to create an environmentally concerned facade, but care does not go beyond that which will enhance somebody’s reputation.
Essentially, being green is a popularity contest, and the Earth is losing.
The issues of climate change and environmental awareness require far more potent attention than the current, here-and-there tactics that boost the reputations of institutions and organizations. The only thing that needs a "boost" from environmental concern is the environment.
Barack Obama evinced the same sentiment in an off-camera recording found by Newsweek. In the dialogue, the irritated President-elect argued that "the truth is... we can't solve global warming because I f**king changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective."
So while the College’s Student Environmental Action Committee is in the right place when it buys every incoming freshman a Compact Fluorescent Bulb (CFLs), remembering to avoid purchasing bottled water for its next “Bring Your Own [Reusable] Mug” party would also be a good idea.
The issue is something more "collective" -- it requires consistency in thought and action.
The College itself has obviously succumbed to the popular appeal of sustainability in its designs for the Jamestown dormitories. While a plaque on the wall claims that they are The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certified by the U.S. Green Building Council, the score itself falters with further inspection.
Basically, the College shot for the lowest possibly degree of certification -- equivalent to a D- on a student’s exam. Additionally, we achieved this grade through a little bit of concern for energy efficiency, and a whole lot of fancy windows.
These environmental scores should not carry any aesthetic weight. Thus, even LEED’s ranking system falls into the same trap that everyone else does.
Unfortunately, money is a huge issue on a public college’s campus (especially at times like these), so it’s hard to blame the school for being environmentally lazy in construction projects. Regardless, there are many actions that the community could take to work towards fulfilling its own role in environmental preservation. These actions should be consistent, and should focus on daily life -- on the problems that we inherently cause to the environment as humans and as college students.
While you may be thinking it’s easier to talk the talk (and you’re right), many ideas would incur minimal additional costs, while increasing effectiveness. For example, outdoor recycling bins would allow students to properly dispose of drinks and containers between classes, instead of trashing them. Dining Services could begin to collect the remains of certain foods, and create a composting project that would ultimately work to fertilize the thousands of plants on this campus that are installed perennially.
While the sustainable cups that I described earlier are a great step forward, they certainly aren’t an all-encompassing solution to the wastefulness involved in take-out dining at the College, and they certainly don’t solve any tragic environmental crises. No matter how cool they are, they never will. If they are considered one small part of a complex plan towards an eco-friendly community, however, then by all means: bring on the plastic plant cups, and ditch the Styrofoam!
It is understandable that environmental efforts sometimes cost more than their less eco-friendly
alternatives. This will be the case for a long time, and at economic times like these, large additional expenditures might not be an option.
But that’s fine.
This school cannot afford to place massive solar panels on the tops of buildings to cut down on pollution-generating energy consumption. It lacks the resources necessary to grow its own organic food and to put in thermostats and rewire hundred-year old buildings.
At this point in time, the College cannot be sustainable by definition -- that is, “capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment.” Nonetheless, it can afford to be consistent in the tactics that it currently implements, and attempt to keep environmental sustainability in mind beyond what makes it look good, and what raises our “eco-rating” according to private ranking organizations, such as LEED.
It’s the age-old idiom that your mother tells you when you end up screwing up: do the best with what you have. If we’re putting in the effort and trying to fix the world, we can’t just look it -- we have to mean it.