Campus energy policy powered by irony
Editor’s Note: This is a guest opinion that has been submitted by a member of the Rice community. The views expressed in this opinion are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Thresher or its editorial board. All guest opinions are fact-checked and edited for clarity and conciseness by Thresher editors.
When I opened up my letter this summer from Dean of Undergraduates Robin Forman, I was delighted to find that Field Notes from a Catastrophe had been chosen as the common reading. Over the course of my first year at Rice, I had often found that the issue of global warming was little more than an afterthought for most students.
"Finally," I thought, "Here is an opportunity for students to really start talking seriously about Rice's role in tackling global climate change."
However, I could not help but notice the irony in this choice of reading material.
Last year I served on the Student Association Environmental Committee, where renewable energy was our major focus. We found that Rice currently derives less than 1 percent of its energy from renewable sources. The vast majority of our power — and college campuses use a lot of power — comes directly from fossil fuels.
Our basic conclusion was that more renewable energy on campus would be an easy, effective way to reduce Rice's carbon footprint.
After meeting with faculty members and surveying the student body, we devised our initial plan of action: a student initiative to raise housing fees by $100 per year that would ensure 20 percent of energy on campus — approximately the amount of energy used by the residential colleges — came from renewable sources. In other words, students would volunteer to increase their fees by 0.2 percent in order to reduce Rice's use of fossil fuels by 20 percent.
Our survey results showed that students overwhelmingly supported this plan, and we were optimistic that it would be able to pass a vote by the Student Association. However, our plans came to an abrupt halt when Housing and Dining informed us that such a student initiative would not be put in place even if passed by a formal vote of the student body. We were told that Rice had achieved its success by maintaining cheap student fees and unnecessary increases in the cost of attending Rice would damage its national reputation.
Soon after we were informed of this decision, Rice announced that Room and Board fees would increase the following year by 6.9 percent. I could not help feeling slightly betrayed. Housing and Dining had decided to increase its fees by 6.9 percent, and yet refused to consider a voluntary student initiative to increase fees by a mere 0.2 percent more. Apparently, global warming was of that little importance to them.
Thus, when Forman claimed in his letter that "global climate change is real and merits our most urgent concern," I couldn't help but laugh. Of course global warming merits our urgent concern. Millions of the world's poorest people will probably die within the next decade from famine and drought.
But when it comes down to it, the university seems more concerned with its rankings in U.S. News and World Report. After all, why force new students to read about the horrors of global warming if their university shows such little interest in addressing it?
It then occurred to me that the debate over renewable energy at Rice perfectly mirrored national climate change policy—everyone talks about global warming, but nothing ever seems to get done. As an esteemed national university, we should be leading by example, not following in the footsteps of politicians who remain content to address the issue with nothing but hollow words. We still have a chance to change our approach, but if we do not act soon it may be too late.
More from The Rice Thresher
Before you attend a counseling session at the Rice counseling center, you will be told that “the RCC maintains strict standards regarding privacy.” You will find statements from the university that your mental health record will not be shared with anyone outside of extreme situations of imminent harm, and only then that your information will be shared with only the necessary officials. This sounds great, except that these assurances bear no teeth whatsoever — no enforcement agency ensures that Rice follows its public confidentiality promises, and there are no penalties for Rice if they break them. The Wellbeing and Counseling Centers should more directly communicate the limits of their confidentiality policies when compared to unaffiliated counseling centers, and students in sensitive situations should take the necessary precautions to protect their information.
This week marks the last issue of the Thresher for the year, and for the seniors like myself, our last issue ever. I have been a part of the Thresher since freshman year. And it would not be an exaggeration to say it has defined my Rice experience. As someone pursuing a career in journalism after graduation, there has been no better place to learn than at this paper.
In January, the Rice Board of Trustees announced plans to move the Founder’s memorial to another area of the academic quad as part of a whole redesign, adding additional context of his “entanglement” with slavery. This comes despite continual calls from the student body to not have the enslaver displayed in the quad regardless of the context provided. It would be just for these calls to action and the majority of the Task Force Committee who voted to not keep it there that the Board of Trustees decide to not keep the memorial prominently displayed in the quad at all.