Pioneer LogLewis & Clark College’s Student-Run Newspaper

Letters to the Editor 3/12/10

March 12, 2010

SEED responds to last issue’s editorial: Green fee increase is simple and powerful

Yes, we care about the environment.

But the attempt to raise the green energy fee is about more than that. It is about recognizing the social costs generally overlooked by traditional “life-cycle cost-benefit analyses.” Money spent on fossil fuels, particularly coal, does not represent the negative externalities such energy sources produce.

When coal is mined, not just birds and trees suffer. It isn’t even just the globe as a whole, which must adjust to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas levels. It’s the people in the communities where coal is mined and burned who bear the brunt of environmental degradation and health effects. The over 600 signatures in support of this change that we have gathered simply by talking to students in dorms or outside the Bon attest to the fact that most LC students are genuinely interested in recognizing and accepting responsibility for their energy use. We do not want or need impoverished coal communities to subsidize the energy use of our private liberal arts school.

It’s true that electricity accounts for “only” 36% of Lewis & Clark’s emissions. But this 36% totals more than 4.5 million pounds of carbon emissions per year. Every Lewis & Clark student is thus responsible for the extraction of roughly 0.75 tons of coal. We realize the green fee increase won’t immediately overhaul our energy system. But investing our money in wind energy normalizes alternative energy technologies and provides financial incentive for the development of new and improved energy options. Wind energy is not some quirky fad, much less the status quo.

We support reducing Lewis & Clark’s emissions in all ways, but raising the green fee is simple and powerful. Committing to a higher fee will dramatically reduce our emissions and provide a precedent for student-driven institutional change.
This is the low-hanging fruit.

Students Engaged in Eco-Defense

Garik Asplund, author of the original article, responds:

There are also externalities associated with wind power, and many reasons why, despite its promise, it has not made significant dents in generating electricity. First, many windmills kill birds. Aside from this irony, wind energy is unreliable and needs to be backed up. So far this has been done with hydropower, but since wind has expanded greatly already, natural gas will pick up the slack. Implementing all of these backups is not cheap. Finally, wind farms are loud. Union, in eastern Oregon, has recently been fighting to keep wind farms away because of all their nuisances.

Most important, however, is the fact that we at LC are not in fact using any new green energy from the fee. RECs are at best a fumbled subsidy, and at worst a scam. Understanding what SEED’s program pays for is paramount.

 

A third view on the student senate issue, and empowering the students

In response to the letters about the senate in the past two weeks, I would like to say that both Mr. Garcia and the cabinet are wrong.

The senate is surely not failing, as Mr. Garcia claims it is. If you look at the administration’s response to us over the past two semesters, the change is marked. Now, when student groups such as SEED come to the administration asking for an increase in green fees, [Vice President for Business & Finance] Carl Vance says they must first pass a bill in the senate before he will speak with them. Another hoop to jump through, perhaps, but this is a clear acknowledgement of our legitimacy.

As for the cabinet’s response, it paints too sugarcoated a picture of the true going-ons of the senate’s activities. The senate is not failing, but the senators could stand to do a whole lot more.
Yes, we have passed several resolutions on weighty issues, but the cabinet didn’t mention that two student groups—not senators—proposed and wrote these two pieces of legislation. Moreover, most of the senators have not even proposed any resolutions. I’ve asked this of my senators in senate and I will ask it again here: Why did you become senators if you don’t care about any issues at this school? This is a failure of the senators, not the senate.

Finally, on the handful of resolutions we have passed, there has been little to no follow-through. The senate needs to be held accountable for the resolutions its members pass. This accountability has been noticeably absent throughout the past and present semesters.
Finally, a word on student empowerment. 

The students of Lewis & Clark are so unempowered, it’s pathetic.  Without us, this institution does not exist. Without our money, Lewis & Clark cannot operate. How can we be so naïve as not to realize that if any significant majority of students demanded a change at this school, the administration would damn well listen and oblige?

When is anyone going to realize that this means WE have the power?

Jared Schy
College of Arts and Sciences
Class of 2012