Two recent appointments to the Washington University board of trustees represent the interests of large coal corporations: Gregory Boyce is the chairman and CEO of Peabody Energy Company, and Steven Leer is the CEO of Arch Coal. Because the trustees effectively own our University, this appointment carries weight regarding the viewpoint that the University seeks to project as we move into the new academic year. In a recent issue, Chancellor Mark Wrighton spoke about the relevance of these appointments to University actions, saying, “All members of the board are influential, [and] we’re doing both educational programs and research programs on energy and the environment. They’re in a very good position to help us understand the real challenges of coal utilization.”

Mike Hirshon | Student Life

When we think about modern universities, there are two traditions that we place in perspective: There is the classic, medieval university, and there is the progressive university of the 20th century. The former is a place where ideas are honed; the latter is a place where they are applied, a place built on the foundations of research and industry. The progressive political movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s was a movement built on the conception that science, industry and big business could optimize human potential—a movement that spanned Max Weber’s bureaucracies as well as Andrew Carnegie’s steel factories.

Fossil fuel played a key role in this optimization: The society, industry and economic structure that we have built would not have been possible without cheap, easily accessible sources of energy. Wrighton acknowledges this notion, saying, “For more than 100 years, we have had to access to abundant sources of fossil fuel at very low costs, and [this] has proven very important to our advance as a society.”

So what happens, then, when this great civilization finds that the very fuels that formed its foundation are toxic substances, carbon formations that are both running out and damaging our atmosphere? This is a question that environmentalists have contended with for a long time, and it has been brought to the forefront of many policy discussions because of the increasingly pressing concerns that it carries. In a University setting, the question is especially relevant: It is large research universities such as ours that will develop the technologies that carry our civilization into an era that does not—and cannot—rely on fossil fuels.

The recent appointments to the board of trustees demonstrate that Wrighton’s administration seeks to work within the system rather than against it. Wrighton contends that the more pressing issue is not alternative energy sources, but fuel efficiency: “The big opportunity here is efficiency improvement. If we could realize the deployment of known technologies—technologies that we know can work—we could significantly diminish the need for enhanced energy production capacity…We should be investing in areas that make advances in efficiency.”

The truth that can be gleaned from speaking with Wrighton is that large research universities and large energy businesses have been inexorably intertwined from the get-go. Because of the sheer magnitude of powering the world—15 terrawatts per day—most relevant research concerns efficiency solutions, solutions that are large in scope. As Wrighton admits, “This is big business, and we need all the help we can get. The carbon providers—by…the opinions of others—maybe they’re the bad guys, but there’s no other game in town.” As population growth continues, the chances of providing large-scale clean energy are slim. While we can provide new forms of energy that are cleaner and more efficient to meet growth, old infrastructures will have to stay in place: “We can’t take something off the table until we come to grips with our ability to meet the power demands that we require.”

The University’s support of these old infrastructures demonstrates a certain business sense, a sense of pragmatism that we identify with 20th-century ideas—economics, production efficiency. As Wrighton says, “You have to balance idealism and pragmatism, rather than forgo the use of energy.” His perspective, and the recent coal-related appointments, demonstrate a University movement away from ivory-tower hypotheticals that might fuel the world in 100 years and toward realities that will fuel the world in 20. Moreover, it demonstrates what our University’s role will be in energy policy: a push to work within the system to make adjustments in fuel efficiency. Idealism will have to be found elsewhere.

Kate is a junior in Arts & Sciences and the senior Forum editor. She can be reached at [email protected]