IT IS ALWAYS refreshing to see positive, progressive changes around the University, particularly ones that come from students. Last week there was a referendum for the creation of a “green” housing option on Grounds, one that was passed by a solid 92.5 percent of those who voted. This result indicates how our student body is not only interested in being more sustainable but also how it desires to directly tackle the problem of living “green” in a world full of tattered solo cups, empty pizza boxes, and other debris one sees on 14th Street after a weekend night.
Students are often willing to espouse ideals but not necessarily live them. I am as guilty as the next when I desire a sustainable world but lazily leave lights on or take showers that are twice as long as they should be. We all know it’s better to recycle yet throw beer cans in trash cans; though student groups can now advertise on the flat-panel televisions in Newcomb or O-Hill many continue to waste paper flyering every bulletin board; driving a car is just a lot easier than taking the bus. While so many should be commended for attempting to live sustainably around Grounds, at the end of the day we still live an extremely wasteful existence.
However, it is fantastic that a “green” housing option has been approved by the student body because our society will never have environmental progress unless people try to learn how to live eco-friendly lifestyles. Mark Williams, a member of the Student Council Environmental Sustainability Committee and the leader on this project, believes “[it] sends a message that we are doing our part in the sustainability effort and reducing our impact on the environment, and it affirms that we can do so in a university setting.”
The students who will occupy this house will, in a way, be living on the edge — not in an Indiana Jones-esque way but in one that is distinct from the typical college existence. Composting, solar panels, a garden — you name it and this place will have it. What these students will learn is how to actually live sustainably, not just recycle or cut off lights. Sustainability has been defined by the EPA as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and the students who inhabit the “Greenhouse” (my name submission) will get an opportunity to be at the forefront of the sustainability movement.
Williams hopes students will “take notice of this house, and incorporate its energy- and water-saving features into their own lives.” Indeed, the long-term goal should be to apply methods used in the sustainable house to the entire University. For example, placing solar panels on every University building could be a start. It certainly wouldn’t harm anything except perhaps appearances — but really, aside from cost, is there any reason to not do this? One route to becoming more sustainable is reducing the inherent costs of energy as the oil and coal burned to electrify our world are among the most damaging things for the environment as well as for our economy ($4 gas this summer) and national security (buying from the Middle East).
Naturally, there was a small group of individuals who voted against the referendum. The likely reason for their opposition was probably not hostility toward the prospect of going green but more likely the unknown costs of the project, of renovating a house to make it greener and implementing programs associated with it to achieve sustainability. On a larger scale, that seems to be the principal complaint for all sustainability issues where the solutions appear costly. What everyone needs to understand, however, is that while the price of creating a “green” housing option or, on a national scale, building thousands of wind turbines is admittedly high, it is the long-term results like tremendous savings on energy costs, a more secure nation that doesn’t have to kowtow to the wishes of OPEC, and a healthier environment for all living things that outweigh the high initial investment in becoming greener. If we accept the early costs of becoming more sustainable, the savings (in all facets) we will accrue as a society will more than compensate for those expenditures.
Universities like ours should be at the forefront of the movement for a more sustainable society. As an intellectual establishment, we have the thinkers, movers and shakers who can figure out how to live more eco-friendly lives. Student Council and the student CIOs working to make the University more sustainable should be applauded for their efforts in getting this referendum on the ballot, to practice what we preach. Hopefully, the University can be a trend-setter on sustainable policies that will make this world a better place for all.
Geoff Skelley’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
