Ethan Walling
Contributing Writer
Last week, Carbon 0 Woo collected more than 200 letters to President Anne McCall urging her to develop a carbon neutrality plan for the College. More than two-hundred pieces of paper were used to tell President McCall that the student body wants a more sustainable campus. Students at The College of Wooster are concerned about carbon emissions, and we should be. There is undeniable evidence of global climate change. But how many of the students who wrote letters pushing for a carbon neutrality plan are actually committed to sustainability themselves?
Making fun of ‘performative males’ has been a recent trend on social media. Why should we not poke fun at someone for carrying around a tote bag, sipping matcha lattes and listening to Clairo to gain social approval? Performative environmentalism, also known as greenwashing, is acting environmentally conscious primarily for appearance rather than for a deeply held commitment to ecological well-being. A performative environmentalist is similar to being a performative male, except now ‘listening to Clairo’ is reposting Greta Thunberg, ‘sipping matcha’ is buying a metal straw and ‘carrying around a tote bag’ is, well, carrying around a tote bag.
In my time at The College of Wooster, I have seen a significant number of students preach sustainability and environmental consciousness without practicing it themselves. People will leave the lights on in their rooms, not recycle and engage in excess consumerism — I know of one student that traveled to Chicago, New York, Washington, D.C. and Austin during fall break alone. They do this all while being critical of institutions for falling short of expectations. Before continuing, I feel the need to say that we must hold institutions to environmental standards. However, I want to stress that we must also hold ourselves accountable and not lose sight of our impact as a collective — any environmental studies student could explain the tragedy of the commons.
Regarding ‘Letters to McCall,’ I thought the campaign was naïve. To underline Wooster’s lack of a carbon neutrality plan, the organizers displayed the names of other institutions with their target dates for carbon neutrality: Oberlin College (2025), Denison University (2030), Kenyon College (2040). What was not listed next to these institutions were their endowment sizes: Oberlin College ($999,379,881), Denison University ($912,965,000), Kenyon College ($419,099,295). For reference, The College of Wooster has an endowment of $331,118,049.
Carbon neutrality plans require significant upfront investments, from paying environmental consultants to constructing sustainable infrastructure. Oberlin, Kenyon and Denison all feature geothermal energy and heating as key aspects of their plans. In the case of Oberlin College, their geothermal project cost $140 million. The unfortunate reality is that Wooster, compared to these well-endowed schools, lacks the flesh to nurture such a carbon neutrality plan. Despite this, we can still learn things from other institutions’ carbon neutrality plans. In their plan, Kenyon College notes that the bulk of their carbon emissions come from their consumption of non-renewable electricity. Their solution is to purchase renewable energy credits to offset those emissions. This is imperfect for two reasons. One, these credits are an additional cost to an electric bill. Two, purchasing these credits only theoretically neutralizes carbon emissions — it does nothing to limit them. Without an actual reduction of emissions, any carbon neutrality effort is performative.
I propose that The College of Wooster can do better. Instead of buying renewable energy credits, we can make efforts to use less electricity. Instead of building expensive geothermal wells, we can turn the heat down and put on a sweater. My issue with last week’s ‘Letters to McCall’ is that students were not asked what they would do to make the College more sustainable. Much of the climate crisis can be attributed to overconsumption. Our first step to a “Carbon 0 Woo” should be to foster sustainable behaviors on campus, not scapegoat President McCall for the hundredth time. There are plenty of places to begin on campus.
Before we push for expensive consultants and infrastructure, we should make a personal pledge of sustainability. It would be hypocritical if I did not admit to being unsustainable at times, but I see this as an opportunity for us all to take action. To all the performative environmentalists, if you want to stop sipping matcha lattes, make a pledge. For your convenience, and, in the interest of not using a bunch of paper for my sustainability campaign, I have included it here:
“I, ______________, pledge to take meaningful steps to reduce my personal carbon footprint. I will conserve energy by turning off unused lights and electronics, lowering my heating and cooling use, and traveling more sustainably. I will minimize waste by reducing, reusing and recycling. I will shop locally and avoid unnecessary purchases. Lastly, I will encourage people I know to make mindful, sustainable choices.”