COLUMN: There’s more than one way to go green
Is $100,000 enough to make Utah State University a more environmentally conscious college? The proponents of the Blue Goes Green fee seem to think so. During this week’s elections they are asking that you give up six dollars a year to fund a new initiative proposed by the Sustainability Council to create a more sustainable campus. For the equivalent of a delicious six-pack of PBR, you can do your part to help the environment as well as your university. If only it was that simple.
I believe the Blue Goes Green Fee will be a colossal waste of money and will fail to benefit students in any significant way. The issue is not whether we should care about the environment. In fact all of us do, including me. The real issue at play is if the Blue Goes Green Fee is a good policy to enact. I believe that it is not so.
Now, six dollars a year may seem relatively small, but with almost 17,000 students on campus, this equates to $100,000 a year. Over 10 years, that will be a million dollars given to a student-run organization. That’s a lot of money being taken from students for students.
My first issue with the proposal is the sunset clause. With the way it is currently written, five years from now the Blue Goes Green Fee will “undergo strong evaluation to determine its value.” My problem is that it will be the administration, rather than students, that will decide if the Blue Goes Green Fee is worth keeping.
After five years, students will have paid over half a million dollars in fees. We students should ultimately have the final say if this program is worth keeping, not the administration.
The second problem I have is that we already have a Facilities department dedicated to creating a sustainable USU. If you go to the facilities website, you can click the sustainability side-link and see all the work that facilities has done over the years. Here are some examples:
• Installed new variable speed drives and pumps in irrigation pump houses that operate more efficiently and reduce power consumption.
• Occupancy sensors have been installed for lighting systems across campus which reduces usage and maximizes the use of daylight.
• Retrofitted 3.5 million square feet of space with new efficient fluorescent lighting, reducing the power bill by 30 percent.
The reason Facilities works to create a sustainable campus is because that is their job. They have been mandated to cut cost and so far they have done a terrific job. Their $12 million annual budget is paid for by the state. So students don’t need to pay higher fees in order to have a sustainable campus. We are already moving toward a sustainable campus and the status quo is already solving for itself.
The sustainability council replies that the fee will act as an additional resource to campus facilities and will provide students the ability to help with projects. But when you look at the proposed list of projects that want to work with facilities, it becomes apparent that they would need facilities more than facilities needs them. Facilities would be bringing to the table an annual budget of $12 million a year as well as an excellent track record of sustainability.
The sustainability council would bring in $100,000 and a track record consisting mostly of seminars and Aggie Blue Bikes. Facilities already has the authority, manpower and money to implement all the projects proposed by the Blue Goes Green fee. If the sustainability council is so determined to receive funding, I recommend working with facilities for money. Work with them to implement sustainable projects that cut costs and divert those savings toward the council.
The fee’s political aspirations are commendable. But this fee will do little to nothing that is not already being done and it will be next to impossible for students to overturn. Choose the more responsible position on this issue. Vote NO on the Blue Goes Green Fee.
Justin Hinh is a sophomore in political science. He can be reached at justintsn10@gmail.com.