Washington University has earned a B in a national group’s annual report card on college sustainability practices for the second straight year, but students and faculty are questioning how the group came up with its results.

Greenreportcard.org is a program designed by the Sustainable Endowment Institute (SEI) and claims to be the first website to present sustainability profiles for hundreds of colleges in the United States and Canada. Each university is assigned a letter grade in multiple categories and these grades are then averaged to determine each institution’s final sustainability GPA.

The grades are based on surveys and studies conducted over a period of two months by both school administrators and independent researchers. The Office of Sustainability provides information in response to surveys that the University receives.

Overall, Washington University earned A’s and B’s across many categories. But the University received a D for endowment transparency and an F for shareholder engagement.

Students believe that the report card is an indication that while the University is taking steps toward providing a more sustainable environment, there is still much work to be done.

“The breakdown of the grades reflects room for huge improvement in issues regarding the endowment,” said junior Arielle Klagsbrun, co-president of Green Action. “We still believe there’s much work to be done on campus, but we are glad to see excellent grades in food and transportation.”

Some students said they feel the University didn’t deserve its A rating in the climate change and energy category because of its ties to coal production.

“Although the University does work to reduce overall energy use, Wash. U.’s reliance on coal as its primary energy source is not sustainable,” Erika Gould, a 2010 Wash. U. alum, said. “That makes me question the A we received in the climate change & energy category.”

School officials also question the legitimacy of the grading.

“I don’t think the grade is fair,” said Daniel Bentle, the communications coordinator of the Office of Sustainability. “We’re trying to develop our own definition of sustainability. The report [does not] provide a concrete definition of sustainability.”

According to Bentle, universities must make public all information regarding their assets to get a high score in endowment transparency. This information, however, is under the administrative office’s control and not made available to the Office of Sustainability.

As for the shareholder engagement category, Bentle said that the schools that got a high mark have committees designed specifically to address those issues, and the University does not currently have a committee that deals primarily with sustainability issues.

The Strategic Plan for Environmentally Sustainable Operations, created by the Sustainable Operations Leadership Council, states that reducing the University’s emission of greenhouse gases is its primary goal toward sustainability.

Bentle also pointed out that there are many inconsistencies between the grades for different schools. A PowerPoint presentation on the ratings shows discrepancies, such as University of California, Berkeley’s transportation rating. While Cal received an A in 2009, it received a B in 2010 after the University had increased the students and staffs’ use of alternative transportation.

Another example of inconsistencies is University of Columbia’s green building rating. Columbia received an A in 2009 for its five certified Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) buildings, but it received a B in 2010 after the number of LEED-certified buildings had increased to six and the number of buildings that met LEED criteria reached 14.

“We’re looking for a more transparent, more objective grading system,” Bentle said.

According to Inside Higher Ed, there is an open letter that is circulating among university sustainability officers that questions and debates the usefulness and the accuracy of the assessments made by SEI’s College Sustainability Report Card. The open letter was signed by two dozen officers and was released in July 2010.

At this point, the University has not yet decided whether to participate in SEI’s report for the next school year.

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

Matt Mitgang

Bruce Nilles, left, Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign for the Sierra Club debates Fred Palmer, right, Senior Vice President of Government Relations for Peabody Energy, in the Great Coal Debate on Tuesday in Graham Chapel. Nilles presented the negative aspects of coal and its impact on greenhouse gases, while Palmer discussed the prevalence of coal usage and green coal.

An old-time cowboy and a suave Washington lobbyist faced off in Graham Chapel Tuesday to discuss the future of coal.

The Great Coal Debate, hosted by Student Union and organized by the Washington University Climate Justice Alliance, brought two opposing men into the same debate. Fred Palmer, the senior vice president of government relations at Peabody Energy, sported black cowboy boots to go up against Bruce Nilles, the director of the Beyond Coal Campaign for the Sierra Club.

Brian Walsh, the writer of Time’s “Growing Green” column, moderated the debate.

Peabody Energy is the largest private-sector coal company in the world. It produces coal to fuel 10 percent of the United States’ electricity generation and 2 percent of electricity generation worldwide. The CEO of Peabody Energy serves on Wash. U.’s board of trustees, alongside the CEO of Arch Coal, a coal mining and processing company.

Palmer started off the debate, giving a presentation about the necessity of coal.

He noted that it cheaply fuels American homes and developed countries worldwide.

“Coal will now be our path to greater prosperity, industrialization, a clear environment and a source of low-carbon energy for both the United States and the world in what we call green coal,” Palmer said.

Palmer has great hopes for the concept of “green coal,” which produces no emissions. This coal has not yet been produced.

Palmer stressed that coal is what brings people electricity and civilization, repeating that coal leads to “more people, living longer, living better,” and showing a chart correlating use of coal in various countries with life expectancy and education.

“This is a reality in Africa,” Palmer said, showing a picture of Africans in the middle of a plain carrying presumably food or resources on their backs, in “abject poverty and living off the land.”

Palmer expects that coal use will increase significantly over the next 30 years, and so the goal should be to find a way to get coal’s emissions down to near zero.

Palmer also explained that people look at carbon dioxide wrongly and that they should look at it as a product and not a pollutant.

“We’re good at focusing on the negatives [of coal], not the positives,” Palmer said.

He also pointed out that coal is used globally and is not solely a resource in the United States. China’s and India’s coal use is rapidly growing, and Palmer promoted the idea of “green coal” again to fit the situation.

Nilles’ presentation differed in that it focused on the negatives of coal and the lack of progress made on so-called “clean” or “green coal.” He started off stating that 81 percent of all greenhouse emissions come from coal, even though it accounts for less than 50 percent of electricity.

“This promise of capturing carbon is simply a promise that hasn’t been realized,” Nilles said.

Not only have coal companies not lived up to their promises, but also, their facilities are not kept up to date. Nilles said that about 70 percent of coal-processing plants were built before or around 1980 and have not been changed to account for new pollution controls.

He also drew the audience’s attention to the problems of soot and smog around coal plants, touting $750 million in health care costs in St. Louis alone directly related to the three coal processing plants in the city.

Their pollution is rampant, and, in addition to hurting humans, hurts the environment as a whole.

“There is no industry that does a better job of creating regulatory loopholes,” Nilles said.

Nilles also thought that the economic benefits touted by coal companies is a farce and that more jobs could be created in new “green energy” (not coal) sectors.

After each speaker made his 20-minute presentation and the moderator asked one question, the floor was opened to questions.

When asked if he believed in global warming, Palmer responded that Peabody had agreed to the President’s proposal of an 80-percent reduction of emissions by 2050.

“We recognize the concerns people have regarding climate change,” Palmer said. “We do think there is too much emphasis on computer model projections in the future and not enough emphasis on people now and our lifestyles and our wealth and our health now and the health of our kids now.”

This article has been updated to reflect the following correction
An earlier version of this article mistakenly attributed a quote about global warming to Bruce Nilles; in fact, the quote (which begins “We recognize…”) was said by Fred Palmer. Student Life regrets the error.

Palmer currently serves as vice president of government relations at Peabody, while Nilles is the director of the National Coal Campaign for the Sierra Club.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Peabody Energy is the largest private-sector coal company in the world, generating 10 percent of the electricity consumed nationally. Gregory Boyce, CEO of Peabody Energy, is a member of the University’s board of trustees. Along with Ameren and Arch Coal, Peabody Energy is also a lead sponsor of Wash. U.’s Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization.

On the other side of the debate, The National Coal Campaign encompasses efforts to move beyond coal and adopt carbon emission-free energy. The campaign includes Campus Beyond Coal, an initiative to collaborate with college students throughout the nation to limit coal’s future. The Sierra Club is the oldest and largest environmental organization in the United States.

According to senior Melissa Legge, an organizer of the event, the debate is an opportunity for students to hear unfiltered accounts from each side.

“We [organizers] wanted to open up a dialogue on campus around the subject of coal…and open up a forum for the future of coal to be debated about,” Legge said. “Both sides deserve to be heard. We really want the debate to be…balanced.”

Senior Kady McFadden, another organizer of the event, agrees.

“It’s really important to understand what the arguments are on each side so that we can really make informed decisions going forward,” she said.

The Great Coal Debate will occur in Graham Chapel at 5 p.m. Tuesday. A reception will follow the event in Tisch Commons at the Danforth University Center. The entire debate will be streamed live on the website www.ustream.tv.

Each speaker will have 20 minutes to make a statement. Debaters will then answer five questions submitted previously by students. At the end of the event there will be a chance for audience members to ask questions. Brian Walsh, senior correspondent from Time magazine, will moderate.

A similar debate at the University of Charleston in West Virginia inspired McFadden and junior Harry Alper to organize Wash. U.’s version. Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy, and Robert Kennedy Jr., founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance, debated a variety of issues surrounding coal, including poverty and the environment.

McFadden hopes that the debate will allow students to participate in an issue that largely affects St. Louis as well.

“People talk about coal in West Virginia, but we should be talking about it here in St. Louis…Two of the largest coal companies in the nation are in St. Louis,” she said.

“I hope that students recognize, first, how big of an issue coal is, but also how big of an issue it is in St. Louis and at Wash. U.”

Senior Will Fischer wants the event to further bring the campus to the forefront of the coal debate.

“Students can participate in a national and international discussion,” he said. “The debate really brings this national dialogue to campus.”

Student environmental activists have previously made their views known about the University’s involvement with coal executives. In November, students protested the University’s support of clean coal research with a flash mob at a reception following the America’s Energy Future symposium. Student Union later passed a resolution in support of the students’ activism.

Yet at a time when so many Americans are demanding clean energy, why are so many of our institutions of higher education still relying on and supporting such a dirty and outdated energy source as coal?

From the mine, to the plant, to the ash pond, coal is our dirtiest energy source. It causes asthma and other health problems, destroys our mountains and releases toxic mercury into our communities.

We cannot continue to rely on this dirty and dangerous source of power. That’s why I’m excited to debate Fred Palmer, senior vice president of government relations at Peabody Energy, on Tuesday, April 27, at Graham Chapel here on the Washington University campus.

We’ve seen our nation’s college campuses become great activism centers around our greatest environmental threat: global warming. Young people are laying the groundwork for our clean energy future, and they’ve got the coal—which is responsible for more than 30 percent of our global warming pollution—in their sights.

Coal provides about half of our nation’s electricity, but here in Missouri, it’s responsible for 84 percent of the state’s power. We all know the Show Me State can do better.

Coal plants are dangerously outdated. Nearly half of our existing coal fleet began operating more than 50 years ago, and many of these plants lack modern pollution controls, making them major sources of mercury, soot, smog and global warming pollution.

Pollution from coal creates significant health impacts, including asthma, lung cancer and other respiratory issues. According to Physicians for Social Responsibility, pollution from coal plants has been linked to four of the top five leading causes of death in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke and respiratory disease. These impacts are suffered right here on the Wash. U. campus, which is located in a county that violates federal air-quality standards for smog (also known as “ozone”), a dangerous pollutant that is largely caused by pollution from coal plants in the metro area.

Coal plants are also one of the largest sources of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S. Mercury pollution causes brain damage and other developmental problems in unborn children and infants and has been linked to a greater risk of coronary heart disease in men.

Pollution from coal plants adds $62 billion a year to health care costs, according to the National Academy of Sciences, and research from the American Lung Association shows that coal pollution causes 12,000 hospitalizations, 38,000 heart attacks and 24,000 deaths each year.

And that’s just what burning it does. Mountaintop removal coal mining devastates Appalachian communities and watersheds, as coal companies blow the tops off mountains to get at a seam of coal, and then dump the waste into nearby streams and valleys.

Once coal is burned, its ash is very toxic, containing harmful metals and chemicals like arsenic, lead and selenium. This coal ash is dumped into unlined piles and waste ponds, where it seeps into the ground and water tables. Or, even worse, the waste ponds can rupture, just as one did near Harriman, Tenn., in December 2008, destroying homes and permanently damaging the landscape.

This all shows what a bad investment coal is. It’s unhealthy and it destroys communities. Instead of spending millions to artificially extend the life of the outdated fleet of coal-fired power plants, it is time to phase out this old way of generating power and transition to clean energy technologies, like wind, solar and efficiency, that will power the future and create good paying jobs for Americans.

Clean energy technologies are available and already creating thousands of jobs around the country. An October 2009 study by researchers at the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California, Berkeley, shows that clean energy investments will create as many as 1.9 million jobs nationally by 2020. Those are jobs that Wash. U. and other college grads will be seeking out over time.

And no matter what our opponents say, capturing the carbon pollution from coal plants does not make coal clean. As I’ve noted, there is a host of other dirty problems associated with coal.

Continuing our dependence on coal chains us to dirty energy and prevents us from making the changes we need to bring about a clean, secure energy future. I hope you’ll join me at the debate against Peabody Energy’s Fred Palmer on Tuesday, April 27. Let’s stand up for clean energy together.

Bruce Nilles is the director of the Sierra Club’s nationwide Beyond Coal campaign. To reach him, see
http://www.sierraclub.org/contact/

I’m relieved to see finally the Wash. U. sustainability plan, but it isn’t good enough. I appreciate the administration’s efforts to adopt broad policies that will help reduce the University’s impact on nature. The fact that our university acknowledges the serious threat climate change poses to the nation’s natural resources (which is probably more than coal and energy executives on its board are willing to admit) is refreshing. But the sustainability plan as it is now is sadly incomplete; it will never achieve its full potential without a serious commitment to educating Wash. U. students, faculty and staff on making responsible choices that will protect our natural surroundings.

The draft plan has numerous positive initiatives. One is single-stream recycling, which I love. Now you can dump anything except food, liquids, Styrofoam and tissues into any Wash. U. recycling bin; recycling on campus is now faster, easier better. The University has held strong in its commitment to eliminate coal as an energy source for steam generation. LEED-certified buildings will help mitigate the effects of the never-ending construction on campus.

Yet as always, beauty is only skin deep. I’m willing to bet that most students don’t know that they can recycle potato chip bags, or wash out and recycle the brown food boxes, which means recyclable waste still ends up in landfills. Ameren UE is still St. Louis’ main electricity provider, and it generates most of its electricity from burning dirty coal. I’m sure Wash. U. participates in Ameren’s PURE (People Using Renewable Energy) Power program, but the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported that less than half of the extra fee for participating goes toward renewable energy credits, which may support out-of-state projects. Most of the fee goes toward marketing costs and profit.

So what can be done to make the sustainability plan better? For the University administration, promise to reduce the amount of new construction and to fight for cleaner energy sources.  I realize Missouri has a pathetic renewable energy infrastructure, but Wash. U. is in a unique position (particularly with an Ameren executive on its board) to demand more. Also, the Tyson Research Center powers itself exclusively through solar power—if solar energy works for the Tyson Center, why not experiment with solar panels on a residential hall or classroom building? Finally, I like my colleague Brent Sherman’s thoughts on building metering. I’d be open to the University reducing room and board costs but then metering and charging rooms and suites individually, incentivizing energy-conscious actions.

For Dining Services, commit to better information on food sources and impacts. Many students may know our bananas are Fair Trade Certified, but do they also know at least some are shipped from Colombia, over 2,000 miles away? Was my lunch grown in the rice fields of Arkansas or Vietnam? A great system would organize menu items into low-carbon (green), medium-carbon (yellow) and high-carbon (red) choices.

And for everyone, focus on a greater awareness of our actions and their impact on our surroundings, so that “I didn’t know” is never an excuse. Probably the best idea I have seen in my year and a half at Wash. U. are the color-coded “Landfill” and “Recycling” stickers on trashcans and recycling bins. They instantly educate you on what effect your throwing away an item has on the world around you. There should be red stickers saying “Coal-powered” above every light switch, or a picture of Hugo Chavez and an oil field next to each television. There should be stickers on washing machines labeling the hot and warm cycles as wasteful. With these and other steps, everyone in the Wash. U. community would be better educated and prepared to make a difference in college and beyond.

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.

Students hold their fists in the air in protest of the America’s Energy Future conference hosted by Washington University Monday. Green Action organized a flashmob to encourage the energy executives in attendance at the conference to go to a student-led energy symposium on alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power held the same day.

In light of our University’s increasing involvement with coal, I write to invite you to travel with me to Coal River, W.Va., during fall break to attend the Mountain Justice Fall Summit. There we can learn from coal town residents and coal miners’ mothers about how to address the high human cost of coal. More information on the summit is available at www.mountainjustice.org. The example set by the positive endeavors of these Appalachian communities can inform the University’s pursuits and further our role in reducing the negative impacts of coal.

Last March, I had the privilege of participating in the weeklong Mountain Justice Spring Break in Rockwood, Tenn., near the site of the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash spill. This past December, toxic coal ash spilled out of a dam, flowing through the town and into the Emory River. The spill released lead, chromium and other heavy metals into the water and air. Mountain Justice is an opportunity to improve the situation on the ground in Appalachia and to help folks from the region as they begin to build safer and stronger communities.

The Fall Summit in Coal River is near a town described in the “Toxic Waters” series of articles in The New York Times. About a year ago, tests confirmed that the water that town resident Jennifer Hall-Massey and her family had been drinking was contaminated with the same toxins present in the coal slurry that sits in an unlined pond just up the valley. Mrs. Hall-Massey and her neighbors must now drink water brought in by truck. Feel free to watch the brief video that appears in the left column of The New York Times article, in which Mrs. Hall-Massey describes the health problems that have recently arisen in her community.

My hope is that by attending the Fall Summit I can learn to support people in affected regions as they come together and build real solutions. They can form institutions that will protect the quality of the water they drink and the air they breathe. They can learn about the medical conditions from which they now suffer and create health clinics to foster their well-being.

If you are unable to join me at the Fall Summit, I would be eager to meet with you on my return and share my experience. We could also arrange a trip for a later date if your schedule allows.

I would like for this letter to be part of an open and ongoing conversation among all members of the University and all those involved with or affected by coal. I’m confident that by working together we can shape a clean energy future that will meet our needs both as consumers and as communities.

Sincerely,
Harry Alper

Harry is a junior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at hjalper@wustl.edu.