Opinion
Education, not climate, should be priority
Story by Emma Schmautz | February 6, 2008
Montana Kaimin
In its pursuit to go “green,” the University of Montana needs to remember that greenbacks are not a renewable resource.
In November, UM President George Dennison signed the American Colleges and Universities Presidents’ Climate Commitment and announced UM has a new goal of becoming more environmentally friendly and carbon neutral. While this publicity statement echoes the current popular trend of making declarations about environmental sustainability, what UM students need to know is how much making UM “green” will cost.
From a purposed climate office to purchasing carbon credits to hiring a sustainability intern, UM has recently directed more focus and funds towards environmental protection.
But with their declaration to wage war against climate change, UM administration should remember that affordable quality education, not saving the planet from global warming, is UM’s priority as a public university.
The Montana Climate Office recently requested a $405,000 two-year budget to fund a new state office that would provide Montana specific climate and weather information. This office could be beneficial to industries, such as farming and ranching, which rely on information about water levels and drought cycles to make business decisions. But UM’s first loyalty should be to its students and its own financial interests, not to Montana’s economy. Come March, the Board of Regents must decide if this office is really beneficial to UM students and is a reasonable cost to enhance the value of education at UM.
The University’s purchase of Green Tags to offset carbon emissions is another recent step in UM’s plan to be carbon neutral. Green Tags, akin to the indulgencies purchased by Catholics in the Middle Ages to atone for sins, are supposed to compensate for carbon emissions caused by flying on a plane to Missoula or driving to campus. But should the University really be paying for environmental atonement? And do the Green Tags, or credits to fund renewable energy, really amount to a difference in climate change?
According to Tom Kimmerer, the executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, all the universities and colleges in the U.S. only produce 1.8 percent of nationwide carbon emissions. Kimmerer explained that if UM were to go carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the global climate.
But if tuition or fees were raised to pay for carbon neutrality and making UM “green,” then UM students would sure feel the difference in their pocketbook.
Rather than centering so much attention on environmental sustainability, UM needs to focus on sustaining the future of its student population by making quality education and affordable tuition a top priority.
This story has been viewed 609 times.
Comments
Though writer Emma Schmautz certainly will get a new hole in her “maverick conservative editorials in a lefty liberal college newspaper” punchcard, this piece stretches the limits of rational thought to a new level.
Schmautz argues that UM’s dollars would be better spent on the ambiguous and ill-defined “quality education” of students.
Disregarding that environmental awareness is, in fact, a topic of education for many students, Schmautz also neglects to provide specific amounts that are being spent on the University’s green efforts. How much, directly, comes out of a student’s tuition bill and/or the University’s general fund? How much comes from state sources unrelated to higher education?
Details don’t seem to matter when there’s a pet conservative cause to rail against, albeit illogically.
Perhaps most telling is Schmautz’s peculiar statement, claiming that UM officials should remember that “affordable quality education, not saving the planet from global warming, is UM’s priority as a public university.” Also, she wrote: “But UM’s first loyalty should be to its students and its own financial interests, not to Montana’s economy.”
Though her attempts to rewrite the University’s mission statement are charming, UM clearly states that it will engage in “service benefiting the local community, region, state, nation and the world,” not just its students.
Nowhere in UM’s official mission statement is there a mention of providing “affordable” college educations.
If Schmautz is so interested in saving a buck, perhaps she should have considered a regional commuter college, or a challenging correspondence course from right-wing Liberty University.
In the meantime, poorly researched knee-jerk editorials with the sole purpose of being contrary and reactionary do little to accomplish a point. Vapid arguments like these prove that in the marketplace of ideas and debate, conservatives have nothing to offer but talking points and straw-man arguments.
Posted by Fred Stapleton on 02/06/2008 at 4:34 am
Emma Schmautz’s writing is trite and wanting. Entirely. Her work seems intentionally “sensationalist” in an attempt to rile the liberal masses.
It is predictable and unexciting. If this is where she wants to go fine but at least create a stir with real stories, with solid information and discuss something we can actually debate.
This story and your request to get rid of Martin Luther King Day so you can hike more in the summer (i think that was you)...is so Michelle Malkin.
(that is not a compliment......no disrespect to Ms. Malkin)
Posted by Ian Dorsett on 02/06/2008 at 9:03 am
The statement that the University admin should focus on what’s best for students, and not Montana’s economy is completely absurd. As a state school, the University of Montana is almost entirely dependent upon the economy of the state of Montana. It is our administration’s job to be involved in the future of this state and this country. The purchasing of green tags, and President Dennison’s commitment to sustainability is just one more way to ensure that the education system can flourish and our students, and university can succeed. This kind of narrow minded thinking, putting the university and it’s students in a bubble, is the reason we have so many problems on a domestic, and international level. Wake up people.
Posted by Rikki on 02/07/2008 at 3:28 pm
