Rachel Murphy
Loggers Go Green
Everyone knows that Loggers Go Green. We bring our own mugs when we go to
Diversions, so is it really a big deal that we drove there? We take shorter showers, but don’t talk
about the 4,000- 18,000 gallons of water it takes to produce one hamburger. We lecture people
about eating almonds and give dirty looks to those drinking from disposable water bottles, but no
one wants to talk how eating meat contributes to global warming.
Sustainability means asking questions and refusing to turn away when the answer isn’t
what we want to hear. Sustainability means sacrifices and lifestyle changes. It is not just the
responsibility of our University, it is deeply personal.
Some things are visible: four lawn mowers running at one time, power-washing in the
rain. But sustainability means calling out the things that we could choose to avoid. The coal
burned to import the banana you had for lunch, the strawberries you want in the winter. Until we
start to take responsibility for our personal sustainability and make a change to the campus
climate as a whole, we cannot expect our University to make these decisions on our behalf.
***
The purpose behind divestment is to put pressure on fossil fuel companies, such as coal,
oil, and natural gas, as non-renewable energy extractors to shift to more sustainable and
renewable sources of energy. This operates as both a symbolic protest, as well as influencing the
amount of money being funneled into helping the fossil fuel industry thrive. However, while
investments in these companies contribute to their negative externalities (such as global climate
change, ocean acidification, etc.), the removal of this support cannot stand alone without a
personal shift towards more sustainable living, and arguably should be preceded by it. Electricity
and heating is the source of the highest level of anthropogenic fossil fuel usage, as 41% of
carbon emissions are related to coal-laden electricity and heat generation (What's Your Impact).
While much of this is impacted by the investments in these industries, the supply is being
provided in response to consumer demand. It is our responsibility to minimize individual use of
these resources, which will add up to reduced extraction. Furthermore, the second largest source
of anthropogenic carbon emissions is transportation, both of goods and people (What's Your
Impact). This means that what we eat and our daily transportation choices directly impact the
amount of fossil fuels burned and their impact on the environment. Choosing to eat local foods
that are in season reduces the need for large, coal-guzzling cargo shipments to transport food
over long distances. Carpooling, taking public transportation, walking, or riding a bike are some
of many ways to reduce anthropogenic consumption of fossil fuels on a daily basis. While one
person’s lifestyle changes may only scratch the surface, a collective culture shift has the power to
elicit a great change in fossil fuel reliance and, thusly, carbon emissions. This change is not only
more impactful, but an important precedent for movements towards fossil fuel divestment.
Investments are often reflections of not only fiscal projections, but of personal morals or
positions. If the campus climate were to shift away from a reliance on fossil fuels, that would
provide much deeper footing in the case to divest, as one could make the argument that
investments of the endowment should reflect the ideals of the university and its students.
To pick apart our current campus climate, we need to look at both university and
individual actions. On an individual level, there are steps both for and away from sustainability.
Despite initiatives to take shorter showers and use reusable mugs and utensils, we are not willing
to look more deeply at the consequences of actions that would have a greater impact on our lives
to change. For example, while taking shorter showers reduces water waste, it takes 4,000 to
18,000 gallons of water to produce one hamburger. We are willing to call out the consumption of
1 gallon of water per almond as unsustainable while California is so heavily in a drought, and yet
we are willing to sweep under the rug the vast impact of Californian livestock production on
water consumption simply because it is easier for many people to cut out almonds than it is meat.
While diet is a personal decision that only an individual can make, we cannot be sustainable
while shying away from critically addressing and answering these types of questions. It takes an
incredible amount of water and energy to produce the immense quantities of grain needed to feed
livestock. Eating lower on the food chain conserves the water, energy, and land lost in this
conversion. We may very well be approaching a time in which these resources are so scarce that
eating low on the food chain is no longer a choice.
When looking at our university as a whole, Puget Sound does many things to try to be
green. It takes steps to use reclaimed water on the lawns, motion detecting lights in both
academic buildings and residence halls, reusable dining containers in the Sub, and more
(STARS). However, the university has reported that it is not taking steps towards clean and
renewable energy or shareholder advocacy (STARS). It is important both to recognize and
commend the university for the steps it is taking, while maintaining that it is not enough to stop
there. We water the lawns, often the same day it rains. We mow the grass regularly with multiple
lawn mowers at once. We power wash sidewalks and walls regularly for aesthetic purposes. Our
campus is more progressive than many in terms of sustainability, but that does not free us from
responsibility for the things we still need to improve. If we are not taking steps towards finding
sources of clean or renewable energy for use on our campus, why would our investments reflect
anything different? Divestment is often viewed by people who are not involved in the process as
an easier step than personal or systematic lifestyle changes. However, pushing for this movement
of investments by a company who is not willing to divulge their secrets is difficult, if not
impossible. If we want to galvanize this change in our university’s investments, we must first
build a solid case that we are strongly opposed to supporting the fossil fuel industry, and then
back that with our actions.
We have little chance of persuading the Board of Trustees to press for divestment from
fossil fuels when our campus itself consumes them so readily. It is difficult to influence
divestment without shareholder advocacy, but altogether unrealistic to ask the university to
remove investments from fossil fuel companies while unabashedly utilizing these fossil fuels
throughout campus and in our daily lives. Some of the most resistance to the divestment
movement comes from the fact that the potential for lower returns on the endowment would
mean less scholarship money for the university’s students. While this may be true and it is the
Board of Trustee’s job to protect the university’s assets and students, there are other ways to do
so. Greener energy sources such as solar energy may be more expensive initially, but they save
enough in energy bills (and in environmental impact) to pay for themselves in anywhere between
two and fifteen years (Pure Energies). Steps like switching to green energy sources to power
campus heat and electricity would have a larger impact on the fossil fuel industry than
divestment alone, and would provide a more attainable goal for other universities following our
example. Until we take further actions to use less fossil fuel both as a university and in our
personal lives, we are not yet ready to successfully advocate for divestment.
Divestment from fossil fuels is very different from other divestment campaigns, such as
from South Africa during apartheid or the tobacco industry, in that those campaigns had much
more separation between the advocates for divestment and the industry. For example, tobacco
users were probably not pushing their companies to divest from the tobacco industry. With
divestment from fossil fuels, however, because these industries are so ingrained in many aspects
of our lives, the people advocating for divestment are also still benefitting from the functioning
of the fossil fuel industry. While we may be taking huge leaps towards sustainable living, we still
heat our homes and use electricity gained from burning coal. It is hypocritical to stand up and
campaign for divestment from fossil fuels while we burn them behind closed doors. This does
not mean that divestment is not an important step on the path to a cleaner and more sustainable
future, but that we are not ready for it yet.
Works Cited
Hickey, John. "University of Puget Sound." Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating
System. Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25 July
2012. Web. 5 May 2015. <https://stars.aashe.org/institutions/university-of-puget-soundwa/report/2012-07-25/>.
"Top 10 Solar Myths - Pure Energies." Pure Energies USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015.
<http://pureenergies.com/us/home-solar/solar-basics/solar-myths/>.
"What Are the Main Sources of Carbon Dioxide Emissions?" What's Your Impact? 2015 What's
Your Impact, n.d. Web. 5 May 2015. <http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhousegases/carbon-dioxide-sources>.