Should Lewis & Clark fund the Kyoto Protocol

Pro: FAQs about the Kyoto Initiative

by Julian Dautremont-Smith

Why is Kyoto compliance for Lewis & Clark a good idea?

Last year, Lewis & Clark produced 21,000 tons of carbon dioxide. In this way, LC is directly contributing to decreased crop yields, increased extinction, more extreme weather events, reduced access to water, and loss of life as well as land due to rising sea levels. The poorer countries of the world, who produce only a small faction of the global greenhouse gas emissions, are expected to be harmed the most by global warming. LC students have an obligation to future generations to take responsibility for our actions and reduce our contribution to global warming.

Doesn’t this take money from on-campus student groups?

Not necessarily. As a student group leader, I fully understand and respect concerns about student groups losing money to fund Kyoto and, therefore, if Poll 2 receives majority support, I pledge to work with student government to get a student fee increase of at least $10 per student so that budgets do not need to be cut to fund Kyoto. In a special election last spring, 83% of voting students supported a proposal to raise annual student fees by $10 per student to fund Kyoto compliance. However, the Board of Trustees did not approve the proposed fee increase because they were opposed to the automatic "earmarking" of funds for a specific expenditure. They argued that offset purchasing should go through the regular budgeting process every year like all other student fee expenditures. They suggested that, if proposed this year, they would support a fee increase that was not automatically linked to a specific expenditure. Therefore, I feel confident that we will be able to get a fee increase and Kyoto will not come at the expense of student groups.

Why are we buying offsets; shouldn’t we be focusing on on-campus emissions reductions?

Buying offsets is preferable to focusing on on-campus emissions reductions because we get better quality emissions reductions at a lower price. LC has already made significant strides in energy efficiency. For instance, all the new buildings are highly efficient and incorporate high efficiency appliances; inefficient incandescent lighting is being phased out; low flow showerheads are being phased in; boilers in Copeland and elsewhere are being upgraded; and the old top loading washing machines have all been replaced with more efficient front loading machines. As a result, on-campus emissions reductions are becoming increasingly expensive. If, for example, on-campus emissions reductions cost $20 per ton of CO2 reduced, it makes more sense to use the $20 to buy offsets for $5 per ton of CO2 reduced and get 4 times the emissions reduction. Moreover, the offset projects we would be funding have additional social and environmental benefits beyond emissions reductions that on-campus projects often lack. For instance, in addition to reducing carbon dioxide, the forestation projects provide wildlife habitat and important ecological services like clean water and soil stability. Lastly, purchasing offsets is complement to on-campus action, not a substitute. It allows us to reduce our emissions in the short run while we work for long run behavioral and technological change on campus. As we reduce our emissions on-campus, we will need to buy less and less offsets every year. In any case, the college will continue to make on-campus improvements to reduce its energy costs. It would be silly to use student fees to fund on-campus projects that the administration could undertake anyway. The offsets we are buying from the Climate Trust provide real emissions reductions and come only from projects that would not have happened without the Climate Trust’s funding. Meeting Kyoto with on-campus emissions reductions would take longer, cost many times more, and would result in less social and environmental benefits than purchasing offsets.

Why should the college take a stance on a political issue?

This issue is first and foremost about personal responsibility and taking action to mitigate pollution for which we are directly responsible. It thus is a moral issue, not a political one. The Kyoto target was picked because it is an already established and recognizable target. It is also the target that other prestigious colleges such as Tufts and Cornell have committed to meet (they haven’t met it yet). Furthermore, the target is doable and appropriate for LC’s current circumstances and I hope that, in the future, the college will move beyond the limited emissions reductions required for Kyoto compliance. Taking responsibility for our pollution is not the same thing as funding a random cause. Every year, the average LC student is responsible for about 12 tons of carbon dioxide. As polluters, we have a responsibility to future generations to mitigate and reduce our emissions. In contrast, LC students are not directly responsible for other problems and therefore it would not make sense to address them with student fees. In addition, it is worth noting that student fees already go to student groups with political leanings. Finally, it is impossible to be neutral on this issue. We can be Kyoto compliant or not Kyoto compliant but neither is politically neutral. Spewing 21,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year without taking any responsibility for it is also a political act.

Why aren’t contributions voluntary?

If contributions were voluntary, we would not be able to guarantee Kyoto compliance. Then, many people who might otherwise be inclined to give would have less incentive to do so since they know LC wouldn't necessarily be able to meet a specific goal. Also, if you make things voluntary, there is a tendency to "free-ride" and although it may be worth $10 to someone to have LC meet the Kyoto Protocol, they might not give money because they think someone else will give enough money. Most people think it is okay for the government to regulate pollution emissions from factories and most people recognize that "voluntary" regulation often doesn’t work. In the same way, it would be a mistake to allow people to avoid taking responsibility for their pollution.

Will it really make a difference? Will anyone know/care if LC meets Kyoto?

Definitely. Over the past year, the effort to bring LC into compliance with Kyoto has received national recognition, including mention in the Oregonian, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. In addition, after last year’s vote, District 3 Congressional Representative Earl Blumenauer made a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives praising the students of Lewis & Clark for taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Perhaps even more important than this positive press is the inspiration that our campaign provides for other schools. I have presented at conferences around the country on the Lewis & Clark experience with Kyoto compliance. Everywhere I go people are excited about what we have been doing and eager to do something similar at their own schools. With the upcoming vote, LC has the opportunity to be the first college to meet the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol and be a pioneer among colleges in the effort to stem global warming.

Con: Keep our money on campus

by John Koehn

Before we hurry off and pass this initiative, I would really like to see an intelligent dialogue happen. "Kyoto" is like a buzzword on this campus. When said it elicits some kind of knee-jerk reaction from a majority of students who would sacrifice limbs for anything Kyoto related. I encourage you all not to be lemmings with respect to the issue we now face. Please make an intelligent decision not based on the larger Kyoto issue as it relates to national politics, but a decision based on how this issue applies to the local campus of Lewis & Clark. Some of you might not agree that there is a difference there, but you must believe me when I tell you that there is a clear and inherent difference that must be considered.

The basic issue as I understand it to be is whether the student government is authorized to spend student funds to purchase offsets (which still confuse me) to make the campus compliant with Kyoto standards. At this current juncture, the issue is not whether being compliant with Kyoto is a good thing. The issue is should LC be compliant and if so how should it be compliant? (Where should the money come from and how should that money be spent?) I have four major problems with GAB funding the Kyoto offsets.

1. I do not believe that it is the appropriate function of student government.

2. I believe that student fees should not be used to pursue a political agenda, even if a majority of students find that agenda desirable.

3. I believe that this has the potential to be a slippery slope further into political issues.

4. I believe that offsets are not the best way to environmentally help our school and that the money could be better spent.

The basic mandate of student government is to direct student funds in

a manner that is most beneficial to students. Students contribute money with the expectation that the money will then be distributed amongst the various clubs and activities on campus. I would rather see money spent to bring speakers to campus, better fund the various student groups or student projects or help make the campus a more enjoyable place to be. I see ASLC as needing to use student funds for students, on campus. I don't believe that it is appropriate for student government to spend our money on something that does not benefit us.

Some students might not find this issue political in nature, but I assure you that it indeed is. With that in mind, it is not appropriate for student fees to be used for political means. I encourage all of you to consider this issue from the opposite end of the political spectrum. It would not be just to use student funds for a conservative project similar to Kyoto offsets, and it is not appropriate here. Politics ought to remain separate from the basic elements of our education and education system. For us to engage in a political agenda, even if the majority of students feel it is an acceptable agenda, is inherently wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.

Once we open this door, it will be quite difficult to keep it from time and again being opened, depleting our student funds. When we decide that, for whatever reason, it is alright to spend student funds off-campus for a political purpose, we run the risk of doing this again and again. I would rather see our money go to programs, facilities, computers, and a variety of other good on campus that are not political and aim to serve the community as a whole. Let's not open our student purse to outside interests to suck it dry. Let's protect OUR money for OUR student groups and campus programs.

If, as a campus, we decide that we need to be doing more to help the environment, then let's do that. But let's not spend our money on this "offset" program. Why should we spend our money so that someone else can help the earth? Let's do it ourselves. Why can't we take the money that we would ship off-campus and use it to purchase more efficient generators? To enact a conservation program? To modernize dorms and buildings? I'm sure that if we use our collective intelligence, we can find a better way to help the environment than sending our money to someone else. Let's keep our money on our campus and make it a better place in the process. Don't take the easy way out and pass the buck on to someone else. Let's take responsibility and use our precious student funds to help the Lewis & Clark community. Don't pass the buck, and don't pass this initiative.