For those of you who are not familiar with Peabody, it is the world’s largest private-sector coal company. Peabody has a bad track record with the environment, to say the least. Last year, Peabody spent five million dollars on lobbying, arguing that any attempt to limit carbon pollution will jack up energy prices and destroy the U.S. economy. Of the 500 largest publicly traded companies, Peabody was ranked 500th in Newsweek’s Green Rankings. Peabody’s “Green Score:” 1.00 of 100. (Compare this with the score of the 499th company, Bunge—18.82). While Peabody claims that coal is the cheapest and best source of energy for the world, a Reuters study found that “the United States’ reliance on coal costs the economy about $345 billion a year in hidden expenses not borne by miners or utilities.” That’s a hefty price tag for “cheap” energy. Finally, Greg Boyce ranked no. 4 on Rolling Stone’s list of “Politicians and Execs Blocking Progress on Global Warming.”

So how does Boyce’s presence on our board of trustees affect Wash. U.? Among other things, the board of trustees reviews the annual budget, makes final decisions on awards of tenure and degrees, manages the endowment and oversees the development of new programs (www.boardoftrustees.wustl.edu). If you don’t see the potential for foul play, let me direct your attention to Wash. U.’s shiny new “Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization.” The leading sponsors? You guessed it, Peabody Energy—as well as Arch Coal and Ameren. The consortium sounds great, except that “clean coal” is a myth. Coal companies are not so committed to clean coal as they are to the phrase’s incessant repetition—a classic case of, “if we say it enough times, people will believe it’s true.” Let me say loud and clear: CLEAN COAL IS NOT REAL. Coal mining and burning lead to acid rain, black lung, asthma, lung cancer, mercury contamination and most importantly, over 30 percent of our country’s carbon emissions. As for “clean coal” research, no technologies yet exist to effectively mitigate the consequences of coal on our health and climate. Of course, the problem is not the research; it’s the corporate influence that makes academic integrity virtually impossible and the implication that clean coal technology is ready for “utilization.”

By allowing Greg Boyce on our board of trustees, Washington University is giving him and his company its stamp of approval. This affects Wash. U.’s credibility as a research institution. As I saw in Tuesday’s class, the reputation of Wash. U. as a “coal university” is a reality. It would be in our best interest to begin to break some of those ties, starting with Greg Boyce, and show both the coal industry and the academic community that dirty lies don’t belong on our campus.

Thank you for publishing the Op-Ed articles by Martin Witchger and earlier by Greg Schweizer in Student Life. It is good to see that the field of energy and the environment, and the research done by faculty, is creating a debate/discussion on campus amongst the students. It helps all of us get better educated on the challenging issues we face. Hopefully this debate, followed by a sound education, will help us tackle and solve some of these issues.

I will not get into a debate on “clean coal technology R&D” in this short note. This brief note is to point out some inaccurate facts about the Symposium on Global Energy Future that are being circulated­—that it was primarily only representing  clean coal technologies (quote: …clean energy alternatives were grossly underrepresented.) Not true at all!  I respectfully refer all interested to the Symposium website, http://mageep.wustl.edu/Symposium2010 and the program therein—http://mageep.wustl.edu/program2010. Please note that copies of the presentation are also posted on the site for all to review. 

As pointed out by Martin in his Op-Ed piece, there were 4 sessions on coal and a keynote discussion on the future of fossil fuels. For every session on coal on Monday there were 2 others, in parallel, not related to coal—e.g. on solar energy, bioenergy, venture capital for renewable energy, green buildings, etc. On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, there were keynote presentations which were broad and covered solar energy, nuclear energy and climate change issues.   In addition to Greg Boyce and Joe Strakey, who spoke at the Symposium on Global Energy Future, I wish students availed themselves of the opportunity to listen to Kristina Johnson, Richard Meserve, Gary Calabrese (yes, VP of a company that touted a solar energy product), John Holdren and several presidents from our partner universities who attended and spoke about the challenges faced by their regions, and how their respective universities were stepping up to the challenge. We were glad to have a networked group of 800 or so students interact with each other, remotely with a low carbon footprint, (MAGEEP network: http://mageepdocnetwork.ning.com/), and the innovative solutions for “campus clean energy” that were presented at this Symposium. Many of these students were from WUSTL, and we thank them for participating. The Symposium on Global Energy Future was indeed broad and had excellent coverage of all possible energy issues. I would also encourage the students to read the Preliminary Report on the Global Energy Future that was released during the meeting (a final report will be posted later).

The Symposium on Global Energy Future was indeed balanced! I encourage students who are interested in the subject matter to participate actively and attend these meetings. Working collaboratively with students, staff and faculty­—both here at Washington University and from our partner Universities—we will make a difference! 

Pratim Biswas
The Stifel and Quinette Jens Professor
Chair, Department of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering
Director, MAGEEP

Erin Mitchell | Student Life

First, let me acknowledge some points where Greg and I agree, but identify their incongruence in regards to our university’s actions. Greg is right to applaud the University in its research on renewable energy, but why were such responsible energy solutions not reflected in the Global Energy Future Symposium? The symposium held four major discussions on coal, in addition to a keynote address on the future of fossil fuels by a coal company CEO, while clean energy alternatives were grossly underrepresented. I also appreciate Greg’s recognition of coal as “inherently dirty,” but why does our university allow coal companies to perpetuate the term “clean coal,” a misleading marketing tool, to spread false assumptions of the dirtiest fuel on the planet?

In order to understand why many others and I are against the promotion of “clean coal,” let me explain some of the realities of this dangerous fuel source. The main technology behind the misnomer “clean coal” is carbon capture and storage (CCS), which entails capturing carbon dioxide emissions, thus preventing carbon from being released into the atmosphere, and storing these emissions deep underground. Implementation of CCS technology would cause a redirection of current problems. While CCS keeps carbon dioxide emissions from immediately polluting our atmosphere, forcing carbon dioxide underground creates a whole new array of concerns. Issues of permanent storage, leakage, pipeline infrastructure and NIMBYism (“not in my backyard”—or more appropriately for CCS, NUMBY: “not under my backyard”) are going to delay CCS’s implementation and create even more problems that are equally or more dangerous, harmful and contentious. While the current rhetoric seems to imply that CCS technology is available today, the reality is that CCS is still confined to a few test facilities around the country. Furthermore, the infrastructure investments that would be required to build pipelines to transport carbon dioxide would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In a world that stresses the immediate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the plain and simple truth is that we don’t have the time or the resources to commercialize CCS. While coal will be a part of our energy portfolio for at least the near future, we should focus on moving beyond coal rather than holding out for an unrealistic minor adjustment to the harmful status quo.

By advertising “clean coal” as a solution for our climate, Peabody, Arch Coal and Ameren mask their own egregious actions with something that Greg identifies as “bettering their product for the society at large.” I would beg to differ. Peabody, Arch and Ameren are not trying to be responsible stewards of the environment. Peabody is part of a lawsuit against the EPA on CO2 regulations. They are willfully disrupting the political process around climate change to ensure further profits. They are not motivated by good intentions, nor are they willing to better society at large. If coal companies truly cared, they would help the people of southern Appalachia where communities are crippled by the destruction of mountain top removal. If Ameren really cared about the people of Missouri, they would implement pollution controls that are required by the Clean Air Act. The Peabody Plan says their future of coal will bring people out of “energy poverty,” but what it will really do is create more climate refugees in the areas it was supposed to “save.” I’m sorry to say it, Greg, but you have been duped by some of the environment’s worst enemies.

Despite the illusionary power of the “clean coal” message, there are real solutions to preventing climate change. This was the objective of the Climate Solutions Forum, organized by Green Action and a few St. Louis community organizations that brought together students, professors and members of the St. Louis community to consider the full scope of energy options and explore the harsh realities that the Global Energy Future Symposium ignored. In the forum, we discussed real solutions to climate change, not for corporate profit, but for the betterment of humanity and the planet.

With so many problems with the “clean coal” technology of CCS, and the appalling actions of coal companies, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to praise Wash. U. for their support of “clean coal,” but rather question Wash. U.’s connection to corporate power and the exploitation of the University as an advertising platform.

Martín Witchger is a senior in Arts & Sciences. Write to him at martinwitchger@gmail.com.

Let me start out with a few things. First of all, our university does a lot of research on renewable fuels like solar, biofuels, and wind – just look at Brauer Hall and the establishment of an environmental engineering department! Let’s give Wash. U. credit where credit is due. Secondly, coal is inherently dirty – that is a fact which I understand and believe. However, I also believe that we can make it cleaner, and that such technology is a goal we should be promoting, not demonizing, if we are all as intellectual and rational as we like to think we are. There is no perceivable short-term national energy portfolio without at least some coal involved. Despite flying rhetoric and clamoring by angry groups, coal isn’t going anywhere, so we should be as responsible with it as possible. So my question is: what is so wrong with investment in making an inevitable resource cleaner for our environment and less dangerous in regards to global climate change?

As an environmental studies major, I’m one of those “greenies” who thinks that massive wind and solar fields have a certain beauty to them. But, ultimately, shouldn’t we be proud of our very own university for pushing cleaner coal (emphasis on cleanER)? Are other institutions pouring funds into mitigating the negative impacts of such a cornerstone of American energy that won’t be vanishing regardless of how quickly we can throw up wind turbines? Shouldn’t we then praise both our own university and the CEOs of Ameren, Peabody and Arch for trying to be responsible when it comes to the near future of burning coal? Why must we vilify their seemingly good intentions? It certainly seems to me that this is the pragmatic and realistic conclusion. I for one salute these executives whose entire lives (and likely those of generations of their families) have been based on the continual burning of coal regardless of the associated pollution, who are now willing to dedicate time and money into bettering their product for society at large. I also applaud Wash. U. for seeing our future’s dependence on coal and trying to do something about it.

Admittedly, I don’t know everything about the possible back-room deals involved in “clean coal” research at Washington University, and I don’t know how many other institutions are putting money into coal-based energy. But let’s be fair and realistic. If Wash. U. is the national leader in clean(er) coal while other institutions are taking on solar, wind, biofuels and geothermal, then we should be proud that at least our institution is willing to take on the responsibility of blunting the impact coal will have on our energy future and on our climate.

To those environmentalists foaming at the mouth over this article, please take a moment to step back and think about the realistic expectations associated with my argument. And to those who scoff at the idea of wind farms covering the Great Plains, make no mistake that I firmly support such ventures over a fossil-fuel economy. But to those pragmatists like me, who are tired of the extremism on both sides and selective ignorance in both camps, take heart: someone hears you and agrees with you. The near term involves coal, so let’s make it as clean as possible and give credit to Wash. U. for being the leader willing to take on this important, but politically and scientifically difficult, stance among liberal peer institutions and an agitated student body.

As an environmentalist, I support the rapid advancement of clean, renewable energy across the country, I support substantive climate change legislation, and I support making coal as clean as possible. I welcome the full debate with all options on the table to create a cleaner energy portfolio that is both technologically and politically feasible. To my fellow environmentalists, how can we possibly expect to be taken seriously and get a seat at the policymaking table if we are staunchly against cleaner coal? Considering the assured place that fossil fuels will have in our economy as we transition toward renewable resources, my ultimate question is this: Why are we against cleaner coal?

Greg Schweizer is a senior in Arts & Sciences. Write to him at

The Web site initially copied the format of official site for the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization, http://clean​coal.wustl.edu, but both sites have since undergone several changes that eliminated much of the similarity.

The real aim of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization (CCCU) is “addressing the scientific and technological challenges of ensuring that coal can be used in a clean and sustainable manner.” The parody Web site, however, disagrees with the message of the CCCU and serves to undermine its purpose.

Brian DeSmet, creator of www.cleancoalwustl.org, said that the format of the Web site was taken from the official site in order to gain more attention.

“If I just made a site that was critical of [the CCCU], who would ever know about it?” DeSmet said, referring to legal pressure on the site. “It really does bring the potentiality that someone at the University or one of the companies would do what they’ve done, so in a sense they did what I wanted them to. I got a thousand hits before I got a cease-and-desist letter from Peabody, and I’m sure I’ve gotten a lot more since.”

DeSmet said that he works for an environmental non-profit organization, but he created the Web site independently.

“To really lend the University’s credibility to a phrase like that, even using ‘clean coal’ in the URL, I had a real problem with that,” DeSmet said.

DeSmet hopes that the site will lead people to become involved in discussion about the CCCU.

“I’d like to see a broader conversation about how this happened and why they are doing this,” DeSmet said.

DeSmet said that his understanding of fair use allowed him to use the logos of the CCCU, Arch Coal, Peabody Energy and Ameren since he did not try to deceive visitors. He said that his goal was to make a point about the CCCU.

“Once you read past the first few lines, I don’t think anyone is going to be confused,” DeSmet said.

But the three corporate trademarks were removed after DeSmet received a cease-and-desist order from Peabody Energy. The CCCU trademark has had a red “censored” bar placed over it.

Richard Axelbaum, director of the CCCU, said he was not aware of any action by the University but wrote in an e-mail that the consortium itself had not taken action against the parody site.

Axelbaum said that the parody site would draw people’s  attention to the official site as well, helping the CCCU spread its message about the research being conducted.

“One of the goals of the Consortium is to help the public become better informed about ways to utilize coal cleanly, and so the additional activity that the Consortium Web site has experienced following the publicity of the parody Web site is helping us to achieve our goals,” Axelbaum wrote.

Green Action President Peter Murrey said he shares DeSmet’s view on the term “clean coal.”

“We have no problem with the research that is being done,” Murrey said. “The data that is coming out of it is amazing stuff. With that being said, under the name ‘The Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization,’ it’s very hard to take those results seriously.”

Murrey said that Green Action and other student groups prefer to register their objections to the CCCU by engaging the administration. Murrey said the professors have been open to discussion and he hopes to reach a cordial agreement.

“[The Web site] gives us a great opportunity to come back to this and put it in another light,” Murrey said. “Say, ‘University, this is how you’re looked at by outside members. How do you want your peer institutions to look at you?’”

Under the resources area of the parody site, links are provided to blogs such as Mountain Justice, Climate Ground Zero and the Rainforest Action Network. A posting for America’s Energy Future: Challenges and Opportunities states that “Admission is free, but checking reality at the door is required.”

Chancellor Mark Wrighton speaks at the State of the University in April. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Student Life conducted an interview with Chancellor Mark Wrighton after the most recent quarterly meeting of the board of directors on Friday. The discussion involved a review of major events that occurred during the semester. Wrighton commented on the growth of the endowment this quarter, upcoming budget cuts, the debate surrounding clean coal, recent ethical controversies, the University’s position on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the racial discrimination incident at Original Mothers bar in Chicago, and his favorite Michael Jackson song.

Mark Wrighton: Let me just quickly summarize the meeting, and then you can ask me some questions. I’ve made a big mistake in the meeting; I didn’t look at my Blackberry, like I often do in meetings, to find out that at half-time we were winning one to nothing, but on the way here, I just found out that we were tied five minutes ago. So, we’re hoping that we break that tie before the end of regulation play so that we are in the national championship. But I did note to the Board that we were playing at the time that I was giving my remarks, when we were just starting.

But I summarized a number of activities on campus, and initiatives and such, but the Board, at the December meeting, which is the second meeting of the academic year, elected a trustee that is Ethan A.H. Shepley Trustee, and that person is Andrea Grant, a double alumnae of the university from Arts and Sciences and from Law, and her Board service begins now. The first meeting would be in March—the first regular meeting.
And there are a number of things here, but that was one of the key action items. Another key action item related to candidates was appointment or promotion to tenured faculty positions. We had some candidates for those posts, and we also introduced a resolution on the setting of tuition, which is a process that concludes next month with meeting of the executive committee in terms of decision, and then a letter goes to the students and their families later in January.

The big agenda item for the Board in terms of substance for discussion really are plans to deal with the fiscal challenges for next year. At a committee meeting yesterday—the Board committee that is responsible for this—voted to reduce endowment spending by 4%, so university-wide, that is about $10 million reduced in revenue, and that is a complication that we knew about, even though the endowment has recovered quite significantly since July 1. We still feel it would be prudent to reduce spending by 4% next year; that is on top of 4% for the year we’re in. So we spent a fair amount of time—about a little over half an hour, I believe—talking with the Board about the financial planning next year.

Student Life: Since the endowment is down, is it still shrinking?

MW: Well, since July 1st through the end of November, we estimate that the endowment has increased by 13+ percent. We will spend, roughly speaking, 5%. So if we spent the 5% and ended up with the 13% gain, the endowment growth would be 8%. After the first quarter it was up 10%, so if you multiply that by four, we’d be up by 40% then—I’d be happy, but then it is a long year. And with all the certainty in the economy it would be premature to even count on a 13% total return on the investments. We obviously hope for that.

SL: Are there layoffs ahead?

MW: We’re going to be announcing, more broadly, the results of all our financial planning in the month of January, most likely. We have made all the firm decisions about where reductions will occur, but right now, we’re looking at, in just say the central administration, something like $7 million of reductions, and that’s a pretty significant number. But we’ve been working with people; we have some open positions that will not be filled. We’ll obviously try to minimize the consequences. We think that the administration does something, and if you cut, you’ll do less. And what we are trying to do is to, on the one hand, make the reductions we need to be fiscally responsible and also to prepare ourselves for years ahead that we think are not going to be robust in terms of large rates of growth of revenue. It is a different world. If it happens, as I said to the Board, we’ve got these great plans, and if new resources come along to support them, we’ll do new things, and we are doing new things as resources become available. Our scholarship initiative, for example, is an effort that can build resources.

SL: On another note, the University announced over the summer that it is closing the Center for the Study of Ethics and Human values at the end of the year. Meanwhile, University faculty members Jeff Smith and Timothy Kuklo drew national attention this semester for unethical actions; Smith for lying about his role in producing illegal campaign literature, Kuklo for falsifying data in a medical study. How do these events reflect on the state of ethics at Washington University?

MW: We have to reflect that we’re an institution populated by people, with all that that implies. All people exhibit shortfalls. It is regrettable people in positions of prominence and in positions of responsibility exhibit such short falls. You imply a relationship between the closing of the Center for the Study of Ethics and Human Values and fact that we had these shortfalls. I believe that it is the case that the transgressions of these individuals would not have been materially affected by whether or not we had a center in the first place, or whether we closed it, or added 20 million dollars to its budget. I think we have, in fact, a very strong community. We have a very strong culture of what I call—what we call—compliance, that is, an environment where people are informed about the policies of the university, and we have systems in place to review whether we are in compliance. I think, overall, we’re very strong in those regards.

Unfortunately, the constraints we face physically are going to affect all parts of the university. I said we’re reducing expenditure in the central administration, what we called the Central Fiscal Unit. The schools of the Danforth campus will also be experiencing, if not outright reductions, they will be slowing their development of new initiatives, slowing or lowering the number of faculty hired, so everybody will be operating with more financial constraints.

Unlike Student Life, my administration’s paper goes out of print after the December 10th issue. I’m told that will save 87 thousand dollars. I’m also told that there are individuals that are upset that they won’t have a printed Record, but we believe that it is the right decision in the long-term. The transition will be hard. I know people who don’t have computers—it might be hard for you to believe—but people who are fairly sophisticated, and when they do, they don’t read newspaper on them. We’re going to be doing a number of things that, you know, are not necessarily the most desirable things for us to be doing. But I don’t think the closing of the Center for Ethics and Human Values is the major contributor to a culture that I believe is quite robust with high integrity and a commitment to this community’s values and policies.

SL: What effect do these controversies around ethics have on students? On the University as a whole?

MW: I think the institution has broad shoulders—it’s a saying. Obviously, it’s not a positive on our reputation, but these are transgressions of individuals. I think for our part it’s disappointing, sad in a way—disappointing certainly, and for people who know the positive qualities of people who have made mistakes, it’s difficult. So nobody enjoys seeing a person who is found to have made these mistakes and I think for students, many of whom perhaps would have today aspirations not unlike Jeff Smith—people may have looked to him as a role model. We see oftentimes people who are our role models not quite living up to our expectations or the expectations that have somehow surrounded them and those shortcomings have unfortunately been, you know, have involved high profile individuals at the highest levels of the United States government, in the clergy, here in the academia, and certainly in the business world. So it’s something that I think we need to take seriously and we need to encourage a culture of integrity, and I think that we do. And a lot of our academic programs have these components as a part of the curriculum.

SL: One of the really significant events for students this semester was the incident of alleged racial discrimination at Original Mother’s Bar in Chicago. In response to this, you sent a letter to Chicago’s Mayor Daley, and you wrote that the experience of our students reveals “we have much work to do to achieve true racial equality in this country.” Have you heard back from Mayor Daley?

MW: No, I have not. I would have expected at least a courtesy response, something to the effect of: “I have received your letter; we will review what you have written”. You know, something that probably would have come pretty quickly and something in that vein, with no promises, but basically, an acknowledgement of the letter. I do have to say, I am extremely proud of our students, who conducted themselves in a way that makes me very proud to be a part of Washington University. And for the University, I think it frankly led to some very positive attention, and people have come to me about it. It’s been great to see our students conduct themselves so effectively at a time when it could have been emotional. I wasn’t there myself, but I know we had a large number of students there and I thought they responded extraordinarily well. And in the aftermath I think they conducted themselves well, and as I understand it, the outcome in connection with those responsible for that bar have made some commitments that I think will contribute to making their business better.

SL: And what is the University doing to achieve racial equality both here and more broadly in the community and the country?

MW: I think one of the most important things that an academic institution can do is to work hard to have a very inclusive environment as a community, which welcomes people and provides great opportunities. One of your headlines today is socioeconomic diversity. I haven’t read the article, but I saw it, as featured on my Blackberry. I think in an academic institution, and especially even though we are constrained, we should know that we are a wealthy institution. We have $5 billion in the bank, and that’s a lot of money. So we can afford to be proactive in recruiting people from all backgrounds. It’s not just counting noses. It’s really bringing to all members of the community the benefits of diversity. Washington University Students are destined to be leaders. That’s your potential. You’ll be leaders of organizations which are diverse, and it’s important to build a good understanding of all the people you’re going to be working with. I think here I’ve interacted with students who have told me, for example, a Midwestern young woman said to me ‘I came to Washington University and I’d never met anyone who’s Jewish.’ Well, they’d probably never been to New York, which has a very large Jewish population. But also the way we assign housing, you know people living together. We had a presentation at the Board meeting today on the McDonnell International Scholars academy. One of the committees, the committee on educational policy, and Professor Jim Werch, who is the director of the academy, he said ‘We’re building a network of people who get to know each other while they are here, and to understand the different cultures that they themselves represent.’ And you may know that there is tension at times between Japan and Korea. In the McDonnell academy we have partners in Japan, we have partners in Korea, and we have scholars from both countries, and we have a Japanese scholar who has a roommate from Korea. And I think that helps build better relationships and inasmuch as we say, and we hope, they emerge as global leaders, they can help over time address differences that have in the past, at least, created big conflict. And we know in America that racism exists, as evidenced by what went on in Chicago, and I think by having students here interacting with each other from many different backgrounds, that will be a positive in their education. So I think there are a lot of ways that we can help out. And I’ve pointed out to the Board that we’re not, for example, in this time of constraint diminishing our commitment, resolve, resources in our effort to strengthen diversity. That remains a very high priority.

SL:  Many students have criticized the administration’s position on clean coal, especially as relates to its appointment of two new Board members from prominent coal energy corporations and its hosting of an energy conference in support of clean coal. How do you respond to students critical of the University’s stance on clean coal?

MW: Well, first of all, the administration doesn’t appoint the Board of trustees. As was the case today, the Board elects its own members. So as Chancellor, I’m not a voting member of the Board. It is true that I can suggest people to be considered, and the process is one that involves a committee of the Board, the Nominating and Governance committee of the Board, receiving suggestions from people in the administration or other Board members, and there’s a fairly long list of people. The Board looks to recruit new members who will bring the three things we expect of Board group members: Work, wisdom, and wealth. At least two of the three. It’s kind of a funny saying, it’s from Vartan Gregorian, who was at the time he said it I think the president of Brown University. Board members of Washington University come from all parts of America. We look for people who are from major population centers. We look for Board members who are in positions of responsibility where they would have the experience that doesn’t guarantee wisdom, but experience that perhaps suggests that they would have that. Greg Boyce, who is the executive office of Peabody Energy, is by background an engineer and the chief executive officer of the world’s largest privately held coal company. Steve Leer—Greg Boyce is not an alumnus of the University—Steve Leer is a business alumnus of the university, and the CEO of another very large coal company, companies which happen to be headquartered in St. Louis, and companies that are going to be arguably extremely important to the future of the United States. They are major employers, they have major technical challenges, and therefore, they would appear to be in positions to give us guidance on how to address those technical challenges. They are, their companies, are our partners.

So let’s talk about the conference. I don’t rule on who’s a member of the Board. I can’t even overrule. They’re all my bosses. But it isn’t like a corporate board. A not-for-profit board has the interests of the institution. They are the owners of the institution while they’re board members, and they have the responsibility- they have two very important responsibilities. One is to oversee the assets of the university. We talked a little bit about the endowment. That’s a big responsibility of the Board. That’s their responsibility. I don’t tell them how to invest the endowment, the way it works is they say, as they did yesterday, ‘Here’s how much money we’re going to authorize to be given to the administration.’ And what I’m supposed to do is to use the money as wisely as possible. Oversight of the physical assets and the financial assets, that’s a Board responsibility.

The other responsibility is the review the performance of the Chancellor and to select the Chancellor if there’s a need to make a transition. So every year they review my performance, and could say, you know, ‘July 1, you’re done.’ I stand for election every year. And then, in large measure, they abdicate the administration to me, and I recommend to them University officers, and the deans. The University officers are the people who have the title Vice Chancellor, Treasurer, and Secretary to the Board. All of us, Chancellor and all those officers, stand for reelection every year.

But in terms of the actual operations of the University, for first order they say ‘OK, you’re the CEO, you’ve got your officers and your deans, you run the show and we’ll keep an eye on you.’ So some would imply, for example, that two Board members could say, ‘You know, you guys, you have to advocate for coal.’ Virtually never, I would say never, I’ve been here 15 years, no board member has ever said to me, ‘You know, you ought to have this policy.’ We propose policy to them, and they approve or not. And we have no policy on energy. I will state that categorically.

Let me say that again: we have no policy as an institution on whether coal is good or solar is good. The symposium that we convened stems from my involvement as vice-chairman of a national research council committee on America’s energy future. The committee, not Mark Wrighton but the committee, came up with a collection of findings, and if you haven’t read the report you can check this out, but at this meeting I gave a quick overview of the findings. And I emphasized two things, which, now this is Mark Wrighton’s opinion, not the University’s policy. The committee found that there’s a great opportunity in improving energy efficiency. We can reduce the consumption of energy, and especially electrical energy, by deploying known technology. You don’t have to do research, just implement this technology. And yet it costs money. But we say, and this is a University operational activity, wherever we can, we’re making capital investments to reduce the amount of energy we consume. If you’re familiar, we’ve renovated Busch hall here on the quadrangle. We redid the building so that, at least by our reckoning, we should get LEED certification at the silver level. And we deployed capital to reduce energy and we think it’s good because we’re going to save money. That is, our operating expenses on an ongoing basis will be lower. Let’s say for the sake of argument we spent a million dollars to improve the energy efficiency. We believe that in four years, we’ll be saving $250,000 a year in operations. Now that’s 10 average scholarship awards. And it isn’t over in 4 years, that’s going on into the future and we believe – no proof – energy prices will go up. I happen to believe that prices will go up over the long term. So that’s one thing I said.

The second thing I said at the symposium—I said a lot of things. But I emphasized the other big finding and again, my own opinion. The big finding is that coal is a very large resource the United States and many parts of the world. And our committee observed that carbon dioxide is a problem that we have to address. And if coal is to be a part of the future—today it’s 50% of US electricity, 85% of Missouri’s electricity—but if this is to continue to be a part of the future, and you’re worried about CO2, as many people are, than you have to be able to demonstrate at utility plant scale that there’s a technology that you can afford to capture and store carbon dioxide.

So I advocated for that demonstration project. I didn’t tell you I think coal is what we should be using. I believe in fact it was a mistake, if you listen to other things I say, it was a mistake for Missouri to not do something proactive that would have encouraged Ameren to build another nuclear power plant here. By basically making it difficult for Ameren to build the nuclear power plant, we have no option other than the combustion of coal, so we have to learn to work with it in a way that will not add to the detrimental consequences from CO2, and that’s to develop technology to deal with it. I’m a scientist. I’ve actually done a fair amount of work in energy conversion—fuel cells, solar energy conversion, catalysis—so I’m familiar with the language at least, I haven’t done anything important in at least 15 years in the actual science. But my own favorite, frankly, is solar and I said this at the meeting. There’s a huge super abundance of solar energy, we just have to capture it and that’s a fundamental research activity that I think we should be involved in. And we are. The largest grant ever to the Danforth campus came from the Dept. of Energy in April for work on photosynthesis. It’s a little more—they’ve decorated it more in their title, but it’s photosynthesis work that would give fundamental understanding that could help you use plants as models or actually use plants to generate fuel and that’s renewable. So I’m for it. But coal is with us today and our committee observes that renewables are likely in the next 10 years, which is a part of our charge, what’s going to happen in a decade, that renewables, much as we would like them perhaps to be a bigger part, they’re not going to be a big part of the energy picture for the United States in fractional terms. But wouldn’t you like to have the company that generates 1% of US electricity? You’d be affluent and influential. You could be a member of the board of trustees. But we know that it’s very hard to get to a new energy technology that delivers a significant fraction of US electricity. Moreover, we know as a matter of fact, it’s not what we wish or want necessarily but we know as a matter of fact that the developing world, especially China and India, are today deploying old technology, at best current technology, that uses much more coal tomorrow than they’re using today. And it’s almost literally tomorrow. Missouri has a population of roughly 5 million people. China has a population of over a billion. And there are many parts of China that don’t have access to the amount of energy that we do, and yet they’re growing rapidly. China became the largest producer of automobiles in the world last year, over a million automobiles per month. No exports. All domestic. So China, with 80% of their electrical energy from coal, with a prediction that it will still be 80% 10 years from now. Don’t we have a moral responsibility, not only to the United States but to the rest of the world, to work to develop technologies that will work to mitigate the consequences of the combustion from all that coal? That’s why we’re working on clean coal. I mean our, it isn’t something that I’m sitting in my office and I’m saying ‘Hm, we’ve got these big companies, let’s advocate for coal.’ We’re using coal. The rest of the world is going to use coal. There’s a lot of it and our faculty—not Mark Wrighton, I didn’t do coal research, I did solar energy—but our faculty said ‘We have some ideas that we’d like to pursue, do you think Arch Coal and Peabody Energy and Ameren would be willing to fund our research?’ Well those companies, obviously, they have a vested interest in clean coal and they’re investing. And the biggest investments are not in fact with us. Peabody Energy, for example, is investing in China more money than they’re investing with us…

We’re going to be announcing some ambitions in terms of the university operations that relate to the consumption of energy, but overall, we don’t have a position on what’s the best technology. And going back to our committee, I was the messenger at this meeting, not the policymaker, not speaking about whatever we’re going to do, but the committee—properly, in my view; since I’m vice chair I had my say in that—said ‘You know, we’re going to have a whole bunch of energy technologies, and all that are sensible will be used. Wind, geothermals, solar, photovoltaic, hot water from sunlight—everything is going to be used that makes sense.’ And it’s two words: makes sense. We might be able to take carbon dioxide from coal fired power plants and store it, but if it costs more than some number, it’s a losing proposition and it would make coal more expensive than, say, photovoltaics with storage, you know, with electrical storage, like batteries. You have to do what’s technologically feasible and economically viable.

And one other thing about the symposium, because I think you’d written that we didn’t have anything but coal on the agenda. We had a prominent presentation by—two presentations by outstanding women. Maxine Sabbots gave the keynote talk on energy efficiency, and we had Martha Schlicker of Monsanto, who is Vice President for Biofuels, a renewal energy, and we had an Ameren utility representative. Utilities are basically the people who convert one form of energy into electricity. They don’t have a dog in the hunt either, so to speak. They’d be happy for photovoltaics, and they’re under some mandate to do more in that arena. And we had a policy leader from the Brookings Institution. We had two people from coal, but two of the largest coal companies in the world are here, and we’re their partner.

SL: Students have decried a lack of student input in administrative decisions over the last year. In particular, students have criticized the university’s implementation of a smoking ban without student input and its investment of the endowment in a non-transparent manner. What is students’ role in administrative decision-making?

MW: Well, the board has the responsibility for the endowment. So it’s not a lack of transparency, I don’t actually know what the students would like to know more about. And yet, it’s a board responsibility. We have no secrets. We’re not secretly investing in Cuban companies that make cigars and sell them, while we’re introducing a smoking ban. There’s no—the board has formed an internal company called the Washington University Investment Management Company. The chairman of the board is the former chairman and chief executive officer of the country’s largest pension fund, TIAA-CREF, that’s John Biggs, and we hired to be the Chief Investment Officer a woman by the name of Kim Walker, and there’s a small board on this investment management company, and they oversee the investment of the endowment. They take their cues in part from what’s called the Asset Management Committee, which is another Board of Trustees committee, that sets the spending rule.

Do you have a savings account somewhere? If I said to you, ‘You can spend 10% per year,’ do you think you could keep your savings at that level by making wise investments? I bet you can’t. That’s what the experts say. I’m not an expert, but that’s what the experts say. You can’t spend 10% of your endowment and be safe, and have some high probability that you’ll still have your savings account. There are risky investments that promise you high returns. If you want high returns, you have high risk. And we try to—here’s our goal: Whatever spending from the endowment, we have the goal that the buying power grows a little bit with time. So that means whatever we take out every year, we’d like to be able to increase it at least by inflation plus a little bit. And that’s our goal. So what’s your guess about inflation? It’s maybe 3%. We’d also like to be spending about 5%. So that means 3% plus 5%, that’s 8% total return. And our historic return is 9%. But if you took out 10%, just to spend it, you’d soon run your endowment down or you’d be in such risky investments that in a time like we’ve experienced in the last 15 months, the endowment would be gone. So we have professionals who look at all that—there are no secrets. IN fact, it’s sort of like watching paint dry, you know, it’s not that interesting. We don’t actually—there’s no one—I have to be careful, because I’m not intimately involve din it, but I don’t think we have people who are getting the annual reports of publicly traded companies and saying, ‘I think we ought to invest in Monsanto,’ or Peabody energy, or any other company. The work is done with investment managers, and it’s key to listen to the strategy of these investment managers and then to hire them and then say, ‘We’ll give you $200 million dollars of our endowment, and we’re going to be watching you. How did you perform?’ And it’s financial. I don’t know how to be more transparent, but ask me any question.

What was the other thing—oh the smoking. Yeah. Completely an administration decision, and the right one. Completely black-and-white. Why should we form a committee when we know what the answer is? Washington University was a forefront institution in terms of relating smoking and lung cancer. That was years ago, and over time there’s been an extraordinarily compelling science case for eliminating the use of tobacco products, and I think it’s the right thing. Even secondhand smoke has been proven to be a challenge to public health. SO here we are, an institution at the forefront of medical science, and I think we shouldn’t permit smoking on our property. So I’ll take the spears on that one.

SL: Moving on, the University recently began a search for a new dean for the engineering school. First of all, when will we have a new dean?

MW: July 1st.

SL: And how will this dean be different from the last?

MW: Don’t know yet. We’ll see who it is. Ask me that question in the process. Provost Macias is responsible for conducting that process. It’s just been launched and we’re focusing our search on internal search, by that I mean a person from the academic community of Washington University. In a time like this, I think it would be a little harder to effect a transition from outside, and I think we really need a person that understands us.

SL: Are there specific qualities that you have in mind that would be different form what we had before?

MW: I think our expectation is what we look for for all our academic leaders, people who have themselves a demonstrated record of academic achievement. In this position, of course, we would want evidence of administrative experience and effectiveness overall, a person who can not be overly frustrated by a constrained economic environment, which we know we’re going to have. I’ve been, as I noted before, I’ve been here about 15 years, and we never had a year where we had no compensation increases materially, and where we had a downturn in the endowment. Al the years I’ve been here the endowment always went up until the year we’re in. And you know, that can be very, it is very disappointing, but you don’t want to let it cripple you. Our challenge continues to be the need to be the institution that seems to be and actually is on the move. And I think we can do that. I’m sure you noticed if you have friends at other institutions—they have big problems, bigger than ours.

SL: The student-led gay rights movement The Right Side of History has made LGBT civil rights a major political issue on campus this year. The leader of the movement, David Dresner, has asked University deans to send letters to students explaining why the University allows military recruiters on campus despite the military’s policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which conflicts with the University’s non-discrimination policy. This came one year after the university began an annual James Holobaugh LGBT awards ceremony, which honors the legacy of an ROTC military cadet who was discharged from the military after he came out as gay. What is the university’s position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

MW: I’ve been involved in this issue since I was provost at MIT, which actually has ROTC programs with the Navy, the Air Force and, I think, the Army. I may be wrong on that, but I’ve had a fair amount of experience. My father was in the US navy, career navy man, so I know something about how the military works. There is no evidence that sexual orientation has anything to do with performance, meaning that gays or lesbians are going to perform just as any other person. And the military understands that. I think the military is prepared to change their policy. Unfortunately, I think political leaders are frankly not as understanding of the reality here. And I think I would strongly like to see the United States change its policy. And there are a couple of ways to do that. The president of the United States could order it, in principle. And I think President Clinton was trying to find a path that didn’t create so much political problems that he couldn’t move forward. The Congress could vote and change that policy for the Defense Department, and the courts could, in principle, do something, according to my understanding. So I’m hopeful that the policy will be changed. I believe it should be. And there is a conflict between Washington University’s view and policy and my view, and that of the U.S. government. It’s a problem that we’ve been working on for quite some time. I think there’s growing understanding, and you hear that from military leaders or former military leaders, people who are, I believe, in a very good position to know, and I believe that over time the government will change its policy.

SL: Can we ask you a fun one on the way out?

MW: A fun one?

SL: What is your favorite Michael Jackson song?

MW: Name a few to remind me of them.

SL: Thriller, Billie Jean, Beat It, Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough.

MW: I’d have to hear them. I didn’t listen that much to Michael Jackson. My wife accuses me of just having been in the laboratory too long.

Simon 113 was completely filled as Student Union Senate and numerous members of the university community debated a resolution urging the University to change the name of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. The resolution, sponsored by Jake Novick and Jason Yakabu, pictured above, passed unanimously. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Student Union Senate unanimously passed a resolution Wednesday night denouncing the use of the term “clean coal” in the name of Washington University’s clean coal research group as inaccurate and calling for a new name without the term.

The resolution against the name of the group, the Consortium on Clean Coal Utilization, which is a part of the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES), came on the heels of another Senate resolution passed last week. Last week’s resolution backed student activism at a protest against the University’s support of clean coal energy technology at an energy conference on campus.

The resolution passed  at Wednesday’s meeting, which saw Simon Hall 113 packed with more students than there were seats, denounced the consortium’s use of the term “clean coal,” and called the term an “industry marketing term intended to obscure negative effects of coal extraction, combustion and disposal.” The resolution recommended that the University rename its consortium the “Coal Energy Research Group” or “Coal and Environment Research Center.”

“The issue that students brought to us was the presentation that calling it ‘clean coal’ was not accurate. It’s a marketing term. It’s not something that’s appropriate for a scientific research institution like our University,” said senior Chase Sackett, speaker of the Senate.

The resolution also urged the consortium to research the social and environmental effects of coal extraction, combustion and disposal.

Junior Jake Novick, one of the senators who sponsored the resolution, said that coal is damaging to the health of people who live near coal-burning sites.

“To call it clean is to marginalize those people and those problems,” Novick said.
Novick said that coal research does have practical implications, but the term “clean coal” is misleading.

“To have the name and our name be right next to each other with that very misleading term—it really diminishes what we can take away from this research and really compromises it,” Novick said.

Freshman Jason Yakabu, the other senator sponsoring the resolution, said the resolution comes partly in response to students’ concerns about corporate influence on the University from energy organizations like Arch Coal, Inc. and Peabody Energy. Both of  these corporations were present at the University’s energy conference, and the University appointed the CEOs of these companies as members of its board of trustees earlier this year. Yakabu said students have a duty to speak out on their concerns about these issues.

“It’s an issue of academic responsibility,” Yakabu said.

The resolution also established that the SU executive adviser for sustainability, a post currently held by senior Will Fischer, will act as a liaison to the Washington University Climate Justice Alliance (WUCJA). WUCJA is a recently formed coalition of more than 10 student groups that approaches climate change as a social justice issue.

The resolution is a step forward for SU, according to Novick.

“It’s kind of a turning point in the way of the resolution in terms of taking a lead on an issue as opposed to joining in and saying, ‘Yeah, we agree this is a good thing’ or, ‘this is a bad thing,’” Novick said.

The Senate postponed voting on a stronger resolution about clean coal last week so that senators could become better educated about the subject and ensure that their resolution was properly crafted.

“I’m a little unhappy that it got postponed, but I’m happy we did it, just because it came out so much better, and if we passed something last week it wouldn’t have been nearly as good,” Yakabu said.

Senators say student response to the issue of clean coal has been unprecedented. Senators found their inboxes filled with constituent e-mails on the subject and the Senate meeting on Wednesday was packed with more students than many senators said they had ever seen.

Sackett said this surge in student interest represents his vision of a successful SU.

“Students [are] seeing that we [have] an input and make a difference on things that they really care about on campus,” Sackett said.

With additional reporting by David Messenger and Lauren Olens

The protest was organized by members of Green Action who, through comprehensive initiatives that target many elements of the student body, have sought to cultivate broad-based support for their disapproval of the University’s marketing of the term “clean coal” and their concern over the influence of coal executives on the University’s board of trustees.

We are similarly concerned by the fact that promotional materials for the “Energy Future” conference displayed the Washington University in St. Louis logo next to three equally-sized logos of Ameren UE, Arch Coal, Inc. and Peabody Energy, all of whose CEOs are members of the University’s board of trustees. The board of trustees effectively owns our University, and this marketing position demonstrates the pervasive influence of their corporate missions upon the external reputation of our University. We are likewise alarmed by the fact that a conference purporting to discuss our “Energy Future” did not include renewable energy sources.

Moreover, the University is the chair of the International Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization, whose title includes what many consider a slanted term. What is commonly referred to as “clean coal” poses problems that include the environmental hazards of mountaintop removal and the social justice issues posed by the devastation of mine workers’ communities. We believe that references to coal by the University should not be modified by the word “clean,” but instead should use scientific language to refer to carbon capture and sequestration.

A balanced and pragmatic approach by the University would ideally incorporate the use of current technologies as an interim step toward the eventual adoption of renewable resources. While current technology that can help make the most of the currently available fuel sources is necessary to bridge the gap, the lack of attention to a more renewable future is disconcerting. We would like to see at such conferences the benefits and drawbacks of each type of energy available to us both currently and in the future, and we are dismayed to see a lack of balance in this regard.

Last year, Richard Axelbaum—a faculty member and the director the Consortium—informed members of Green Action that there had not been sufficient student pressure to encourage the University to alter its positions on coal. On Wednesday, Student Union Senate passed a resolution in support of the protesters’ activism, and next week, its members will debate the adoption of a resolution regarding the University’s use of the term “clean coal” generally. SU is a vehicle through which we can show the University that these positions, as well as the promotional activity devoted to advancing them, demand reconsideration and that we as students have a voice in the matter.

But SU resolutions effectively do very little. We feel that individual students can combine to make a far greater collective difference with responses like that which we saw from Green Action Monday night. Given the potential for this kind of wide-spread student vocalization, we encourage you to research the challenges of coal utilization for yourselves to determine an intelligent and measured stance on how the University should move forward in projecting our world’s energy future. Moreover, we encourage you to write to Matthew Malten, assistant vice chancellor for campus sustainability and other school officials about your viewpoints. It is also important, in the long run, that we reach outside the Wash. U. community for support to ensure that the University hears the message that its reputation is intertwined with “clean coal” research that may prove hazardous for the future—our planet’s and our own.

(MCT)

Several Washington University environment and energy experts came together to critique clean coal and to discuss problems with the University’s funding of a Missouri clean coal initiative.

“This notion of clean coal is an oxymoron,” said Bill Lowry, professor of political science. “Coal is going to inevitably be dirty. I think the term is perpetuated by a consortium of energy companies who try to frame the issue likely to gain public support.”

The discussion comes several months after Chancellor Mark Wrighton’s announcement last December that the University would establish a Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization to advance research in the field commonly referred to as “clean coal.”

Yet, at last Wednesday’s panel discussion in the Danforth University Center concerns were raised about the University’s $12 million initiative, which is sponsored by coal-based energy companies Arch Coal, Peabody Energy and Ameren.

Environmental lawyer and 7th Hour panelist Henry Robertson pointed out that 85 percent of Missouri’s energy comes from coal—compared to a national average of 50 percent.

As the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization continues to plan its funding of research and technology, much of the Consortium’s attention will go toward carbon sequestration.  Carbon sequestration, also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), is a process by which carbon dioxide emissions by-produced from burning coal are stored underground, thereby mitigating the power plant’s effect on climate change.

“There will be facilities that will look at…carbon capture and utilization,” said Professor of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering Richard Axelbaum, who also serves as director of the Consortium.

“But right now we don’t have plans to look at the entire scale of the problem,” Axelbaum said.

The Consortium is also planning to build a small clean coal power plant on the north campus, yet this project—like the rest of plans by the Consortium—remains in its conceptual stages without a projected date of completion. This power plant, according to former Green Action president and senior Lee Cordova, will research CCS and its efficacy compared to alternative energy sources, such as biomass and solar power.

Regardless of the work done by the Consortium, panelists such as Associate Professor of Philosophy Clare Palmer, who also teaches environmental ethics and environmental lawyer Maxine Lipeles, who teaches at the University’s law school, take issue of the usage of the term “clean coal.” At the panel, Palmer stated that because of the way coal is “mined, transported and used at the end,” coal could not be considered fully safe for the environment, even with CCS.

Like Lowry and Palmer, Lipeles also took issue with the “clean coal” terminology.

“I have a number of tremendous concerns about this topic, which I think is misleading and diversionary,” said Lipeles in an opening statement at the panel. “What does clean coal mean?  It’s not quite clear—both the Department of Energy and the industry define ‘clean coal’ to mean reducing the amount of pollution that would otherwise come out.”

Robertson stated that CCS is expensive because it requires a suitable geologic formation in which to store carbon dioxide. CCS creates a “parasitic load,” where the equipment needed to operate the carbon storage mechanisms may take 10 to 40 percent of the plant’s output.

“That’s an awful lot of coal you have to burn to get rid of the carbon dioxide,” Robertson said.

For environmental lawyers like Lipeles, part of the concern rests with the University’s adoption of the term “clean coal”—a term she sees as a marketing label used by the coal industry, which defines its research as “clean.”

“I don’t have a problem with the research, but I do have a problem with taking [the industry’s] spin with it,” Lipeles said. “And I don’t think that’s consistent with the ideals of a university and the academic integrity that motivates a university.”

Co-president of Green Action and junior Melissa Legge shared similar feelings, describing the problems surrounding the use of the term “clean coal” as “definitely relevant” to the environmental discourse at the University.

“The use of the term…is the most problematic issue, and it’s not scientifically specific in a way we expect from a university,” Legge said.

Yet, as Robertson puts it, coal is likely to remain a primary source of energy in Missouri, regardless of its adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, researchers like Axelbaum seem to place emphasis on environmental research over the language surrounding the issue of “clean coal.”

“I think the most important thing we do right now is address the issue of carbon in the atmosphere, and I think the real issue is the most appropriate way to do that. It’s very clear there are ways to address the carbon issue with coal—and if we can do that, then we can supply our needs without affecting the climate,” Axelbaum said. “Whether or not we call it clean coal, that’s irrelevant.”