2008 Woodie Awards
Feeling blue for a greener SLU
Editorial Board
Issue date: 4/18/08 Section: Editorials
D-. That's the grade Saint Louis University just received in a "Campus Greening Efforts,"study conducted by the College of William and Mary.
The study measured student attitudes toward climate change and was split into two categories: Universities with "high" and "low" institutional support of campus greening. SLU's administration fell into the "low" category; that, with paltry student efforts, earned the near-failing grade.
To be sure, SLU is not a hopeless case. We have one LEED-Certified structure: the new, green, $67 million Doisy Research Building. We participate in Focus on the Nation, which works to provide solutions to global warming. We have developed an environmental program, maintained recycling bins and support two student groups-Just Earth! and the Student Government Association Environmental Task Force.
But SLU's environmental efforts-or lack thereof-lag lazily behind strides that other, green-focused universities are making. Where, for example, can we read an official statement of policy supporting campus greening? Where's the environmental advisory board, made up of SLU vice presidents or trustees? Where are full-time staff, hired to reduce our carbon footprint?
And that's just on an institutional level; what about SLU students? According to the campus greening poll, 42.9 percent of students make a concerted attempt to conserve energy. That's a greater figure than Marquette University and the College of William and Mary can boast, but less than every other school surveyed.
In the aftermath of films like The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth, and in the midst of careening gasoline, energy and food prices, America is starting to notice the effect it has on world energy use. President George W. Bush even changed his energy policy this week, aiming to stop emissions growth by 2025. As southeast Asian economies like China and India develop, the United States will face increased competition for resources-and in that case, nobody wins.
The study measured student attitudes toward climate change and was split into two categories: Universities with "high" and "low" institutional support of campus greening. SLU's administration fell into the "low" category; that, with paltry student efforts, earned the near-failing grade.
To be sure, SLU is not a hopeless case. We have one LEED-Certified structure: the new, green, $67 million Doisy Research Building. We participate in Focus on the Nation, which works to provide solutions to global warming. We have developed an environmental program, maintained recycling bins and support two student groups-Just Earth! and the Student Government Association Environmental Task Force.
But SLU's environmental efforts-or lack thereof-lag lazily behind strides that other, green-focused universities are making. Where, for example, can we read an official statement of policy supporting campus greening? Where's the environmental advisory board, made up of SLU vice presidents or trustees? Where are full-time staff, hired to reduce our carbon footprint?
And that's just on an institutional level; what about SLU students? According to the campus greening poll, 42.9 percent of students make a concerted attempt to conserve energy. That's a greater figure than Marquette University and the College of William and Mary can boast, but less than every other school surveyed.
In the aftermath of films like The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth, and in the midst of careening gasoline, energy and food prices, America is starting to notice the effect it has on world energy use. President George W. Bush even changed his energy policy this week, aiming to stop emissions growth by 2025. As southeast Asian economies like China and India develop, the United States will face increased competition for resources-and in that case, nobody wins.
Be the first to comment on this story