The Uninformed Vote

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is good. But at what cost? The Environmental Action Committee (EAC) is asking the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) to cut its emissions (through on-campus energy conservation and alternative energy purchases, for example) and would like the student voice behind it. The EAC has crafted a resolution that calls on FAS to “reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to a level 11 percent below total emissions in 1990 by the year 2020”—a bit more than the level mandated by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on the national level. On Sunday, the Undergraduate Council (UC) will vote on whether this resolution will appear as a referendum on next month’s UC presidential election ballot. Although putting the measure to a student vote is well-intentioned, the referendum does not belong on the ballot this fall.

The EAC has proposed a multi-prong strategy to reduce emissions but has only a rough idea of how much the entire project would cost. While some initiatives, like renovating buildings to be more energy efficient, may eventually save FAS money, others, like purchasing electricity from a wind farm, will not. Because the EAC is still assembling its plan, it cannot currently provide a firm cost estimate.

Regardless of the specifics of the plan, we expect that Harvard will need to front a significant sum to begin reducing emissions. Simply put, renovating historic buildings is not cheap. and it is unclear where such funding might come from. Moreover, students have a right to know, before they vote, if this referendum will mean higher tuition or termbill fees, if it might mean funding cuts in other areas of FAS (and what areas they might be), or if private and government grants or loans could be used to jumpstart longer-term efforts. Right now, students do not have the information available to make an informed decision on the costs and benefits of a long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction effort on campus.

Recognizing the clear danger that climate change poses to the earth, this page has previously asked Harvard to be a leader in the field of energy research and sustainable energy generation. We are not yet convinced, however, that a costly effort to reduce Harvard’s own emissions is the best way to do so. But Harvard has other tools at its disposal. We believe that, dollar for dollar, Harvard may be able to make a greater contribution to energy conservation by funding research than by cutting its own emissions.

This is not to say that making the Harvard campus more efficient is a completely unworthy goal. Already, several environmental advocacy groups at Harvard—including the EAC, the Harvard Green Campus Initiative, and the Resource Efficiency Program—undertake various initiatives that save the University hundreds of thousands of dollars each year through reduced energy consumption. But these projects are either small in their expense or large in their monetary savings (or both); a vow to reduce FAS-wide emissions by 11 percent will certainly bring expenses but will not guarantee savings. By this spring the EAC expects to have data from a more detailed inventory of Harvard’s greenhouse gas emissions—and, in turn, a better idea of the costs of reducing emissions. Without that information, however, it will be impossible to assemble a more concrete proposal for emissions cuts, and so until then it is impossible to judge the merits of any plan to reduce emissions.

The UC needs to choose wisely the referenda that it places on its ballot. Referenda on students’ preferences on vague issues do not have a place in a campus election. Without knowing the cost of this proposal and who will pay for it, students can only voice their support for the idea of reducing emissions. Until more information is available to students, this referendum belongs in a basket of well intentioned ideas, but not on a UC ballot.