MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 14 Apr 2007
A Sustainability
Report Card
The
key social predicament of modern times is that the same technology that
bequeaths the joys of modern life also gives humankind the power to destroy our
own prospects for a successful future.
And thus the key moral guideline for social policy must be: sustainability. According to the UN's 1987 definition
of the term, "Sustainable developmentÉ meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs."
A
long view of human development puts sustainability into perspective. We diverged from the other apes six
million years ago, stood fully upright four million years ago, populated Africa
three million years ago, developed tools two million years ago, evolved into
the genus Homo two million years ago, discovered fire 800,000 years ago,
developed big brains and evolved into the species Homo sapiens 600,000 years
ago, developed complex speech 200,000 years ago, evolved into fully modern
humans 150,000 years ago, lost our body hair and put on clothes 110,000 years
ago, engaged in complex symbolic thinking 75,000 years ago, spread out from
Africa 60,000 years ago, discovered agriculture and built the first permanent
settlements 11,000 years ago, invented the wheel 6,000 years ago, and developed
writing 5,000 years ago.
We've
been a long time getting here. But
modern industry-based technology goes back only 250 years. It's an open question whether we can
learn to use this new-found power intelligently and morally. If we can, we'll all live like kings
and queens; but if we merely pursue business as usual we will, within this
century, destroy all prospects for human prosperity. It's for good reason that the great sociobiologist Edward O.
Wilson, author of The Future of Life,
has dubbed this do-or-die century the "bottleneck."
It's
with this perspective that we should judge the many admirable sustainability
efforts of the City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas (UA). The
newspapers have lately been full of reports of recycling programs, alternative
transportation facilities, global warming pledges, green building designs, and
more. We all owe a vote of thanks
to both for these efforts. And
yet, in the case of the university, there are signs that we lag behind other
institutions. This is not
necessarily bad news, for it indicates only that the fervor to save the planet
is even stronger on other campuses than it is here. But it does suggest that UA could be doing better.
The
Sustainable Endowments Institute, which advocates for socially responsible
institutional investing, issued a "College Sustainability Report
Card" in January 2007 that rated the richest 100 U.S. and Canadian
schools. The schools have a total
enrollment of 2.3 million students and comprise 66 private institutions with
$193 billion in combined endowments, and 34 public institutions with $65
billion, including UA with $763 million.
The
schools were rated A, B, C, D, or F in each of seven sustainability
categories. Looking at just the
overall grade averages of each school, 4 schools got an A, 22 got a B, 54 got a
C, and 20 got a D. UA fell into
the D group.
The
seven categories included three well-known sustainability issues. The first was "climate change and
energy": energy efficiency,
conservation, renewable energy sources, and public-private partnerships for
renewable energy projects. Citing
only a campus-wide energy audit and the replacement of incandescent bulbs with
compact fluorescents, the report gave UA a D in this category.
Second
was "food and recycling":
dining services, quantity of local and organic food, recycling, and
composting. UA purchases only
small quantities of organic food, has a sustainable seafood policy, and might
join Slow Food USA to preserve and educate about traditional food customs. UA recycles and has a sustainable
agriculture center. These efforts earned UA a C. The Union Servery's deplorable throwaway policy for dishes
and utensils were surely a big minus.
I and others I know try to avoid eating there, mainly for this
reason.
Third
was "green buildings," the adoption of high-performance environmental
design and green building policies.
UA got a C based on the U.S. Green Building Council's "LEED"
certification of its Innovation Center, incorporation of green technology into
all new design, and experimental buildings to study the effects of green roofs
and develop future building guidelines.
The
fourth category rated university administrations, awarding points for having a
sustainability coordinator, a sustainability advisory council, and a
sustainability office, and for community involvement and education. Although UA faculty are developing a
sustainability research center, UA received a D based on having no formal
sustainability policy.
The
remaining three categories, nearly half of the report's emphasis, related to
university endowments. One
category was "endowment transparency"—openness about investment
decisions and shareholder voting records.
UA received an F because it "makes neither its proxy voting record
nor its list of endowment holdings public." The second was "investment
priorities"—investment in renewable energy and community
development. Because UA "has
not made any public statements about investigating or investing in renewable
energy or community development," it received a C. The third was "shareholder
engagement"—does the school foster campus discussion of
sustainability issues that are then incorporated into shareholder resolutions
and proxy voting on such issues as global warming? UA received an F because it simply "asks that its
investment managers handle the details of proxy voting."
Many recommendations for improvement are implicit in the Sustainable Endowments Institute's comments. UA has declared its good intentions by, for example, signing a nationwide Climate Commitment to develop plans for "carbon neutrality" (no net emissions). My guess is that its sustainability grades will improve by the time of the next annual report.