Matt Mitgang | Student Life

Eliot B House, South 40 House Phase II and College Hall recently achieved LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. Gold is the second highest level of environmental certification awarded by the council.

The council (USGBC) gave Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification to the newly opened South 40 House Phase II, Eliot B House and College Hall. LEED Gold is one step down from LEED Platinum, the highest level of LEED certification.

The USGBC’s LEED program serves as a third-party program for evaluating the environmental friendliness of new buildings. To get the basic level of LEED certification, buildings must meet minimum standards in areas such as energy and water savings, improvements in air quality and reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions. The higher levels of certification—Silver, Gold and Platinum—have progressively tougher standards.

The University has touted the buildings’ closeness to public transit, their water- and energy-efficiency systems, and their use of local building materials as examples of their environmentally friendly features.

Campus environmental advocates took Thursday’s news as a sign that the University is making good on its commitment to sustainability.

“It’s really great that Wash. U. is showing commitment to the environment by getting this certification, and we’re lucky it’s a priority at this school,” said junior Heather Kryczka, a member of Green Action.

The University now has 12 LEED-certified buildings, six of which are LEED Gold. University officials in recent years have repeatedly said that they aim for new buildings to get at least a Silver rating.

“We’re really trying for Gold, but we have to reach Silver,” said Deborah Howard, interim director of sustainability.

In past years, three other residential buildings—Village East Apartments, Umrath House and South 40 House Phase I—received LEED Silver certification. Students and campus environmental groups praised the University in 2009 when it installed an 11,000-square-foot “green roof” of grass, native plants and soil on South 40 House’s roof.

The Danforth University Center, which opened in August 2008, has LEED Gold certification because of energy and water efficiency and the use of recycled materials. The academic building Seigle Hall, which also opened in 2008, has general LEED certification.

Of the 10.6 million gross square feet of land on campus, a total of 293,926 gross square feet in the University have general LEED certification, 249,892 gross square feet are LEED Silver, and 422,063 are LEED Gold.

The University is seeking Gold certification for Brauer Hall, the engineering building that opened in the fall of this year. The University also expects Cupples II Hall to get LEED certification after renovation work on the building finishes.

With additional reporting by Michelle Merlin.

Ideally, given the ban on selling water bottles, every student on campus should now take the initiative to carry a water bottle, filling it up throughout the day at the water fountains on campus. Realistically, we know this has not and will not happen. I have tried to bring a water bottle with me to classes—I do consider myself somewhat environmentally conscious—but have rarely succeeded in this effort. Instead, although I have never been too much of a soda drinker, I find myself reaching for a bottle of Coke out of pure convenience. We can’t buy bottled water, but we can buy soda, juice, and other drinks, many of which come in plastic bottles. I am sure that for most people—particularly those who give very little thought to being environmentally conscientious—convenience prevails and they purchase a drink other than water. Wonderful result. The University can pride itself on being more environmentally friendly, with the fallback that its students will be less healthy!

Even if students are not buying unhealthy drinks, any benefit from the reduction of plastic water bottles could easily be offset by its alternatives. Students are not using their hands to drink water during meals. They are using plastic cups—cups provided by the University at every eatery on campus. Presumably no person picks up a cup, drinks their glass of water, and then saves that same cup for later in the day. That being said, how many plastic cups are used by a single student, in a single day? How many cups are used by the total campus-wide population daily, yearly? This plastic cup use must equate to an exorbitant amount of waste as well.

My intent is not to have the University completely roll back the water bottle ban, nor is my intent for the University to level the playing field by banning all plastic drink bottles. I’m simply questioning the reasons for specifically banning bottled water of all things? Why not start with soda bottles—decreasing the environmental impact, as well as the health risks. There are also many other ways to help the environment that seem to be so easily overlooked.

Have you ever noticed a patch of grass on campus that’s not perfectly green? I can’t say that I have. The reason: the sprinklers. Now, I admit that I harbor some animosity when it comes to the campus sprinklers; I somehow always manage to mistakenly and inadvertently walk right in their path, the spray of water generously dousing my feet. However, my real problem with the sprinklers is the waste of water they represent. Do we really need our grass to be green at all times?

The landscaping around our beloved Danforth University Center (Gold LEED Certified) is irrigated with the use of rainwater. There is a 50,000-gallon rainwater tank below the building to collect rain! I admit, this is pretty impressive, but what about the rest of the campus? What water is used to irrigate and keep green the rest of our 169 acres on the Danforth campus?

I understand that being environmentally conscious is difficult to do, particularly at an institutional level. I applaud the Danforth University Center and other environmental efforts the University has initiated. However, I can’t help but wonder if the University’s ban on the sale of water bottles is more about appearance and less about decreasing the environmental impact of our student body. The water bottle ban has become a way to build the school’s public image: we banned water bottles, we are working hard to be environmentally friendly! In reality, given the switch to plastic cups and the switch to other drinks sold in plastic bottles, is the environmental impact of the ban that significant? Now that the ban has been implemented, I certainly don’t see the University retracting it. However, I hope that in the future the University focuses less on its public image and more on the environment itself when instituting such dramatic changes.

I support recycling also for economic reasons. If recycling was not in some way a cost-effective alternative to using non-recycled items, I do not believe the market for recycling services and recycled goods would be as large as it is today, let alone in existence whatsoever. I thus put most of my recyclables in recycling bins if it is convenient. That said, I do have grievances with the sustainability efforts at Wash. U.

When I returned from winter break, I found that just about every garbage can on campus had been defiled with gigantic stickers emblazoned with the word “LANDFILL.” A little poking and prodding into the matter showed that the University had adopted a single-stream recycling program (SSR). Good so far, yes? Again, it’s back to the economics of the matter. If SSR is both easier for the Wash. U. community and cost effective, then why not use it? Where I think the environmentalists have gone overboard is with the stickers on the garbage cans. On the Wash. U. sustainability Web site, the University admits that a variety of everyday items cannot be recycled. This material has to go in the garbage cans. It is here where environmentalism loses its credibility with me.

Tacking a guilt trip sticker to the cans is obnoxious, especially when not everything is recyclable. I thus propose this question: What is the point of using a sticker when its message undermines your credibility? The answer is simple. There is no point. Save for the green activists feeling good about making others notice their cause, the stickers serve as a mere eyesore to the rest of us. I don’t like having a finger pointed at me every time I try to throw away non-recyclable material. I don’t appreciate the accusation that I’m adding to piles of landfill garbage somewhere in the nation when I’m not supposed to pitch something in the recycling bin anyhow. I can’t help it. Am I instead to leave my garbage on a table in the DUC just to avoid putting it in a landfill?

I ask the environmental sustainability initiative to rethink its promotional policies. Roping people into such a trap just doesn’t work. If you want to convince me, or any contingent of reasonable individuals, of a cause, try facts. Try telling me what it is that I am doing right or wrong. A big, critical sticker on a garbage can doesn’t really help anyone; it merely pushes them away. The “green” movement ought to step off the corrugated cardboard pedestal it has built for itself and realize where it’s gone astray. Until then, I’ll continue putting my garbage in the garbage cans and not feeling bad about it.

Richard is a junior in the Olin School of Business. He can be reached via e-mail at rmarkel@wustl.edu.

University City had requested proposals from the design community in the summer of 2009 for residential plans that would fill five lots within the neighborhood. The homes are also expected to gain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum certification.

Megan Nasrallah from St. Louis architectural firm Arcturis; Donald Koster, senior lecturer at the University’s Graduate School of Architecture & Urban Design; and Richard Reilly, who served as chief operating officer of the former company Boa Construction, collaborated on and submitted the uHome project proposal. University City then awarded them the opportunity to continue their plans.

For Nasrallah, the proposal’s sustainability aspects, and the collaboration between “academia, profession, municipality (University City) and builder” were compliant with Arcturis’ goals.

“The community and social aspects of this project aligned with our values,” Nasrallah said. “The project seemed like a good fit and a unique opportunity to engage Wash. U. in an atypical project, in an atypical way.”

In addition, GreenSpace Construction now collaborates with the project after Boa Construction closed in November 2009.

The uHome project starts with Wash. U. students creating the designs with support from Arcturis professionals. Designs will have to meet guidelines, including improved indoor environmental quality, efficiency in water usage, and innovation in design to be LEED certified.

Students are inspired by the challenge and the chance to influence the Sutter Heights community.

“I think that the social aspect is really important,” graduate student Laura Mark said. “I realize that you can’t just change everything and make everything better for everybody. But if you can make one person’s life better, then your efforts were worthwhile.”

Architecture graduate student Mark Epstein expressed similar sentiments.

“One of my biggest interests in architecture is [to] have an impact on people’s lives, and I think that even though [this is] a small project—it’s not a 97-story skyscraper—it’s very directly impacting people’s lives,” Epstein said.

Epstein also explained that many of the students involved in the uHome project are excited by the potential future construction of the homes.

“The aspect that hopefully this project will actually get built is very attractive to a lot of the people in our group,” he said.

Nasrallah said Arcturis staff also benefit from having new energy in the office, in addition to students gaining a valuable work experience.

Both Mark and Epstein appreciate their collaboration with Arcturis with regard to LEED certification, home design and experience with an architectural firm.

Those interested in purchasing a uHome would first have to qualify for construction loans provided by a local lender. Homebuyers would then work with the design team to adjust the designs for their needs. Depending on features within the home, prices will range from $120,000 to $200,000.

“We will have at minimum five model homes designed to be marketed that will be able to achieve LEED Platinum and will be in the price range that has been set,” Koster said. “Ideally, and I’m fully optimistic that this will occur, we will fully market the project and have identified potential homebuyers prior to the end of this semester.”

Homes should be finalized by November 2010, according to current plans.

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.

An environmentally friendly “green roof”—containing grass, native plants and approximately 110,000 pounds of soil —debuted in late September. The roof covers a loading dock, kitchen and other areas of the South 40 House’s southern lower level.

The new roof is part of a process that ensures that no newly constructed facilities are certified lower than Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver.

The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating system is a third-party certification program for the design, construction and operation of environmentally friendly buildings.

Currently Washington University is in the process of building Brauer Hall, which seeks to gain a LEED Gold rating. The Village East student apartment building earned a LEED Silver rating in July.

Once the second phase of construction is completed, Washington University will apply for LEED Silver certification for the South 40 House and Umrath House, another new South 40 residential building. Both opened in August.

The South 40 House and Umrath House would be the first LEED-designated residence halls on the South 40.

“What we’re seeing is what we’re trying to make inherent in all our campus construction projects,” said Matt Malten, assistant vice chancellor for sustainability. “This project presented a unique opportunity because is it is where a large majority of our students are living. We did try to pave a connection between the green design and quality of living space from a standard of living stand-point.”

The soil on the roof will absorb runoff, reducing the amount of water that flows into nearby sewers, as well as provide insulation, reducing the building’s energy usage. Additionally, for students, the roof provides lawn space for studying or relaxing.

Part of the next phase of construction is the installation of digital dashboards to give students information about how much energy and water is being consumed in these buildings.

“We’re doing all this work on campus to encourage people to consume less energy and less water, and it would be nice if we had the means to get their feedback,” Malten said.

Greg Frankenfeld, an architect with the firm Mackey Mitchell who was responsible for the planning of the South 40 House and Umrath House, noted the aesthetic value of the green roof.

“When looking at such a large environmental footprint, you have to protect it from weather so you have a roof. Instead of a traditional flat roof, which is not pleasing to look at and can’t really [be used] for anything, this was an opportunity to have a nicer-looking facility,” he said. “[The green roof is] a usable space and green space for students to utilize.”

Students responded positively to the construction of the green roof.

“I think it’s really great that our campus is trying to be environmentally friendly, and they’re taking that into consideration with their new building,” sophomore Carrie Kincaid said. “I really like the idea of a green roof.”

Given the University’s recent announcement of the 30 percent endowment drop, some people have questioned the cost efficiency of sustainability measures such as a green roof.

“It is the proverbial question because [there are] those who have scrutinized LEED rating system as a reason not to pursue LEED certification,” Malten said. “We don’t believe that pursuing LEED certification at a minimum Silver level for the type of building we have will add that much of a cost premium. Any organization, like a university, that has design standards that intend for their buildings to be in place for 50 years or so, are already looking at expensive buildings.”

There is still debate on exactly how much cost the South 40 House and other green structures will save.

“We’re still pushing for good material selections,” Malten said. “We’ve gotten really clear feedback, and we want to be able to provide that real feeling for students. We think that will be crucial, really giving feedback to students on the performance of the building, which is something that is not only valuable for students.”

Stephen F. & Camilla T. Brauer Hall, seen here last week, is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2010. Brauer Hall will house the Department of Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Stephen F. and Camilla T. Brauer Hall for the Washington University School of Engineering & Applied Science is scheduled to be officially open and ready for use in the fall of 2010, according to the administration.

Brauer Hall, located close to Whitaker Hall in the parking lot outside of Brookings Hall, is part of the University’s effort to improve research and learning facilities for students and faculty.

Construction began in October 2008 and will be completed in the spring of 2010 in preparation for the following fall semester’s academic use, according to Michael Altepeter, assistant dean of facilities planning and management.

Altepeter wrote in an e-mail to Student Life that Brauer Hall will feature the same architectural style as most of the buildings on the Danforth Campus.

“The architecture will be the collegiate gothic style used by Cope & Stewardson for the original buildings. The building is but one component of a master plan developed for this section of the University campus,” Altepeter wrote. “Brauer Hall is designed with an arcade inspired by the one at Ridgely Hall.”

Among the facilities in the building’s 150,000 square feet of space, there will be two teaching labs, one each for the Department of Biomedical Engineering (BME) and the Department for Energy, Environmental and Chemical engineering (EECE).

Altepeter notes that the building will be immensely useful to the development of the University’s already strong BME and EECE programs.

“The new building will offer the EECE Department state-of-the-art laboratories. The new building also gives BME, presently ranked 10th in the nation, the room it needs to expand,” he wrote.

A highlight of Brauer Hall will be its extensive research facilities for the two departments.

“The research laboratories will be state-of-the-art, modular facilities which will allow us to do research in Energy and Environment,” Pratim Biswas, chair of the EECE Department, wrote in an e-mail to Student Life. “They will be modern and faculty doing similar research will be grouped together. For example, research in aerosol science and technology, air quality and nanoparticle technology will be done on the third floor.”

Seven wet labs and a number of computational labs in Brauer Hall will provide students and faculty with additional facilities for research.

Another innovation in the new building will be a distance learning classroom, which will facilitate interactions between the University and other colleges in the McDonnell Academy Global Energy and Environmental Partnership. These include Fudan University in China, the University of Tokyo, the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay and nearly two dozen others.

“[The distance learning classroom] will have the provision to connect to the world,” Biswas wrote.

In his speech at Brauer Hall’s groundbreaking ceremony in October, Biswas said he anticipated the building will be the site of research that will affect the planet.

“While a momentous event for our University, this building will impact the world,” he said during the speech. “We will train graduate and undergraduate students in energy, environmental and chemical engineering, and prepare the leaders of tomorrow to tackle the important issues we will face.”

In keeping with the University’s environmental and sustainability initiatives, Brauer Hall is designed to receive Leadership in Energy and Environment Design’s  Gold certification, according to Biswas. The building will implement many of the latest technologies to be as sustainable as possible, including a mechanism to capture and reuse storm water and a system of cooperating with local utility providers to reduce energy consumption.

To keep the University community up to date on the construction of Brauer Hall, the department has established a Web site with details on the project: http://eec.wustl.edu/about/newbuilding.asp.

Artist's rendering of the Tyson Research Center

A new building under construction at Washington University will use zero net energy and water through photovoltaic cells, rain capture and composting toilets—meeting standards even more stringent than LEED Platinum.

The Living Learning Center at the Tyson Research Center, scheduled to be completed by May 1, will house a classroom and a high school outreach program. If certified, it will be the only “living building” in the Midwest.

“It’s going to be one of the greenest buildings on campus, if the not the greenest,” said Kevin Smith, associate director of Tyson.

The building strives to meet the “living building challenge” issued by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council to move beyond current expectations for new green buildings.

“LEED is a good start to get mass consumption of green buildings, but we can do better,” Smith said.

While other buildings planned or underway at the University fail to meet these environmental standards, Smith said he believes that constructing just one building of this quality “sends a really strong signal.”

Energy for the building will come through photovoltaic cells so efficient that they may have extra energy left over. Tyson has been considering a “net metering program” that would channel extra energy back to the grid, effectively selling surplus energy back to the electrical company.

Water will come from rainwater collected from the roof, stored in underground tanks and cleaned by microfiltration and UV sterilization. All the building’s used water, or “gray water,” will be reused for watering the grounds or absorbed by rain gardens.

“This prevents the entry of water into typical stormwater systems,” Smith said.

The building will also include water-free composting toilets to reduce water consumption. In composting toilets, waste is collected in a chamber underneath the toilet containing microorganisms that break down, detoxify and denitrify the waste. After the chamber is full, it can be removed, and the newly composted and pathogen-free waste can be used as fertilizer.

While some may have aesthetic concerns about such toilets, Smith promises, “The technology has gotten to the point where they’re entirely usable.”

The group is striving to use as many local materials as possible. All wood for construction will come from nearby fallen trees or harvested cedar trees, an invasive species that Tyson is more than happy to be rid of.

“Just this morning we had people out looking for fallen good-quality wood—cedar trees, oak trees,” Smith said.

In addition, trees cleared from the construction site will turn into firewood to offset other buildings’ fossil fuel consumption, rather than putting the trees into landfills, as is usually done.

The architect, Dan Hellmuth of Hellmuth Bickmese Architects, took pains to make the design fit in with its surroundings, according to Smith. The main classroom will include large French doors that open onto a patio, creating an “indoor/outdoor classroom” that feels less isolated from the outdoors.

Strategically-placed windows will let in sunlight to create passive solar energy, heating the building in the winter. Outside the building, overhangs above key windows will prevent the sun from overheating the building in the summer.

Efficient light fixtures and climate-controlled rooms will help lower energy use.

“Getting to the point where you can even consider something like this involves not just that energy is as low-carbon as possible, but also that it doesn’t use a lot,” Smith said.

Some of the Cascadia Region Green Building Council’s demands have proven challenging. The Council doesn’t allow PVC, a near-ubiquitous building material, for example, and it is difficult to find locks without lead cores.

“Some of the contractors are starting to feel the strain,” Smith said.

The committees, which started meeting at the beginning of the semester, are Energy & Climate, Buildings & Grounds, Dining Services, Transportation and Purchasing & Materials Management.

Matt Malten, assistant vice chancellor for sustainability, said that this part of the initiative is comparable to projects at similar research universities with medical schools, and that it involves evaluation of practices such as turning off lights and raising the heat in classrooms.

“We’re doing a full parametric analysis trying to figure out if it’s achievable,” he said. “It’s not just how much energy we use. It’s also what fuel sources we use. [It] depends on how successful we are in educating individual energy consumption behavior on campus.”

Groups of two or three University administrators head each of the committees, which also include technical experts in each field and student representatives. Malten sits on every committee, as well as the Sustainability Operations Leadership Council (SOLC), which oversees the group.

The Energy & Climate committee, which focuses on the University’s power use, aims to reduce the University’s greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent lower than the 1990 level by 2020.

In order to meet these aims, the University will switch from a high-energy pressurized steam distribution system to a low-energy depressurized system, along with swapping its fluorescent light bulbs for more efficient ones.

“It’s not just what we’re planning to do in the future, but we’re collecting data on what we’ve done in the past,” Malten said. “Our data shows that in all of our construction projects since the mid-1990s, we’ve had dramatic increases of energy efficiency.”

The University’s green student groups have demanded carbon neutrality from the administration for years. Junior Lee Cordova, former president of Green Action, said that although the University will not be eliminating its carbon footprint, he appreciates the administration’s commitment.

“[Reducing emissions is] not necessarily a daring goal, but it would be very exciting if that’s something we could do,” Cordova said. “The University has stayed relatively conservationist, considering the level of growth we’ve had.”

The Buildings & Grounds committee focuses on ensuring that every new building on campus will be LEED certified at the silver level. According to Malten, while the University may attempt to reach a higher LEED level on some buildings, silver makes the most sense for buildings on a college campus.

“Universities have achieved LEED Silver as a minimum, because we design our buildings to last 75 to 100 years,” he said. “We’re trying to look hard at ‘has there been anybody able to make the case that achieving LEED Gold is possible as well?’”

Cordova said that from Green Action’s perspective, having all buildings certified LEED Platinum would be ideal, but that he understands LEED certification is one of many factors considered when planning a building.

“LEED certification is important, but a building has a lot of needs,” he said. “The DUC would be more efficient without the huge windows in the atrium, but they kind of define the space.”

The third goal, as proposed by the Dining Services Committee, is to purchase all food from within 150 miles of campus by 2015. While Cordova said that this is not one of Green Action’s top priorities, monitoring food remains important since it plays a large part in students’ lives.

The Transportation committee aims to reduce by 10 percent the number of individuals commuting to campus solo by car by 2020. While this initiative faces a setback because of pending Metro cutbacks, Malten is confident that the administration can reach its goal through increasing bicycle use and walking.

“A significant part of the population lives a mile and a half from campus,” he said. “How do we get people to bike to campus and walk to campus more?”

Cordova said that relaying this message to students is difficult, because fliers will be less visible for students who move out of Residential Life.

“For a lot of students, there’s no excuse for driving,” he said.

The final goal, steered by the Purchasing & Materials Management committee, is to recycle 35 percent more by 2012 and 65 percent more by 2020. Recycling is perhaps the largest issue for student groups, which have hosted events like “Recyclemania,” slated to be held again next semester, to encourage more recycling.

“There’s a lot of different groups working on recycling. It’s so dependent on student behavior,” Cordova said, noting an impending University-wide project aimed at redesigning the school’s recycle bins to increase their accessibility.

While the University hopes to reach these goals, Vice Chancellor for Administration Henry Webber stressed that the administration wants to be cautious when moving forward in this project.

“It’s an important step, but it’s not a giant step,” Webber said. “The truth is that achieving success in sustainability is going to be built on lots of small and medium-sized steps.”

Webber added that while he cannot promise total transparency on the process, he wants to get students involved.

“There may be at some point things that are confidential to the groups, but I don’t think secrecy is the idea here,” he said.

Cordova, while he encourages students to stay informed of the issues and push the University toward greater sustainability, said that these matters involve high-level processes, which require knowledge of how the University operates.

“If the average student wants to get involved in it, it’s going to be a little harder than just joining Green Action,” he said.

This is the second article in a two-part series about Washington University’s sustainability efforts.

With additional reporting by Kat Zhao

Though many factors contribute to increased temperatures, human activity is without a doubt a main factor in the warming. In its 1997 Special Report on the Regional Impacts of Climate Change (a report released, astonishingly, more than 10 years ago), the IPCC made it clear that “human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use and land cover) are increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which alter radiative balances and tend to warm the atmosphere.” A majority of scientists and an increasing percentage of the population have come to accept the truth: We are in the midst of a climate crisis that we must mitigate.

In the midst of an economic meltdown and a flawed health care system, it might seem easy to brush the climate crisis aside. But effects of the climate crisis will exacerbate these problems significantly and also cause immense suffering resulting from natural disasters, starvation and water shortages. The longer we continue to emit greenhouse gases, the more suffering our actions will cause. And the longer we fail to make substantive changes, the less ability we have to mitigate the crisis.

The next president must address the climate crisis in a serious fashion. He must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and engage in global foreign policy initiatives aimed at reversing warming. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require tough policy, but it is necessary for a stable future.

Washington University must also do its part to prevent the climate crisis. Superficial displays of token environmentalism, such as building merely one of many new buildings to the LEED gold standards but not including the building’s parking garage in that calculation, do not count as serious attempts to prevent climate change. Though Washington University hired Matt Malten as assistant vice chancellor for campus sustainability, the University has provided no evidence that this was more than a political move to create the appearance of environmental concern. According to reports from the University administration, Malten has spent the past year gathering data that is to help him create a plan for sustainability at the University. But either Malten is not serious about change or the University has not fully supported him in his efforts—he still has not released the promised plan.

The University’s attempts at sustainability parallel the United States’ half-hearted efforts to combat climate change by discussing the issue with other countries while refusing to make substantive changes. Both the University and the United States government need to take the climate crisis seriously, eliminate token gestures toward sustainability and implement ambitious policies in order to achieve results. The climate crisis has already affected us, and it will only cause more suffering. To Washington University and to the United States government: Stop playing with the climate crisis—we are entrusting you with our futures.

This staff editorial is the second in a four-part series featured in Student Life’s Forum section this week. Each editorial will focus on a national issue that finds its parallel on Wash. U.’s campus.