In the wake of the midterm elections, little optimism is being expressed for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions.
The influx of Republican lawmakers—many of whom hail from coal states, where carbon caps are deemed politically risky—may mean an impasse in devising a comprehensive federal policy on energy and fossil fuels. Almost all of the Republican candidates were indifferent or hostile to climate-change science. Political observers see that attitude translated into policy.
“Voters effectively pressed the reset button on climate legislation,” say reporters who cover the environment.
For colleges, the shift may mean a halt to, or at least a slowing of, sustainability projects, particularly those paid for by state and federal funds.
President Obama’s economic-stimulus bill included about $75-billion directed toward the higher-education sector, in areas like campus renovations, student loans, federal work-study programs, technology, and climate research. Of that sum, $4-billion was directed toward job training and $500-million to the Department of Labor for green-jobs education and training.
That training, however, may be the kind of project most at risk in the new political climate. Industries and colleges may have to make planning decisions based on Washington’s long-term policies, not on occasional efforts like the stimulus package.
In rural Oregon, for example, investments in renewable energy have had tremendous effects, but they need more support to maintain their pace. Dan Spatz, an officer at Columbia Gorge Community College, says spending on wind-energy projects in The Dalles, a city on the Washington border, allowed the college to scale up its program to graduate 106 wind technicians a year. It’s not yet enough to meet local demand, estimated at about 1,000 workers, but he calls it a godsend for the economically depressed area: “We’ve doubled the net valuation of two different counties out here.”
But without a long-term policy on energy and climate, he worries that local companies won’t be willing to invest in any projects other than the ones they’ve already begun developing.
The debate over whether to keep supporting such programs has more to do with political rhetoric than real-world policy making. A chart published today in The Chronicle shows that Republican rule on the whole has had a smaller impact on spending than some might assume. So perhaps the outlook for some higher-education programs is not so gloomy.
Paul Rowland, executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, is one who remains optimistic. “Jobs were what the election was about,” he says, “even if some of the funding that jump-started sustainability and green-jobs programs disappears. The election may have deferred some dreams, but it didn’t dash them.”
Follow Buildings & Grounds through your favorite RSS reader:
4 Responses to What Future for College Sustainability Programs?
dbnewport - November 5, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Indeed, in the seven square miles surrounded by reality (DC), climate legislation will be tough. But the NYT piece failed to consider the myriad states with Renewable Portfolio standards–or that voters in the nation’s largest state, California, sustained their landmark climate legislation in the face of very well funded and underhanded opposition.
Sustainability is here to stay. It will continue on campuses, in the states and the cities, until the fools in DC get clobbered by the next pendulum swing and are replaced with pols with vision. Students are still selecting green campuses over brown ones. Energy conservation still saves money. Materials reduction/recycling is still cheaper. And more sustainability education is still sought by education shoppers.
bfrank1 - November 14, 2011 at 11:15 am
Yeah, I see how good a job that did cleaning house at the vatican. Keep that up.
bfrank1 - November 14, 2011 at 11:18 am
The Church of Rome purports to be a sovereign entity, entitled to the freedoms and perquisites of a nation state, like the ability to whisk lawbreakers out of the country to perpetrate their bad deeds elsewhere. They are above the law, and they should not be.
12080243 - December 6, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Ken Wallace [an administrator at State University] had never read Machiavelli, but he was
in tune with—and quite naturally applied the principles of—The Prince. Professor Rufus [McCoy] had rigorously studied Machiavelli, but wasn’t in tune with—nor did he apply the principles of—The Prince. Too bad for Rufus, because Machiavelli would have advised him that
“[T]here is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the [administration] in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have actual experience of it.”
Why didn’t Rufus consider Machiavelli’s admonition? It wasn’t, as noted, because he was unfamiliar with Machiavelli’s keen observations. No, instead, he was a true believer, an academic, a denizen of a rational community: “State University is a world class institution dedicated to truth, evidence, and sound reasoning; we apply the highest ethical principles in all of our activities.” So says the Faculty Guidebook.
The Faculty Guidebook describes an altogether different community for Rufus than Machiavelli advised for the Prince. Or so Rufus would have argued, if he’d thought to. So, he would have scoffed at the notion that he was pushing “to initiate a new order of things.” Or so he would have argued, if he’d thought to.
Soon to be released, see, “Rufus McCoy and Profiteers in the Ivory Tower,” by Marc DePree, http://www.usmnews.net