Nationwide, students are leading the way in pushing their universities and colleges to invest in innovative clean energy solutions. There is a growing momentum on college campuses to move our nation off dirty, 19th-century fuels that are making people sick.
Twenty colleges and universities have won fights to phase out coal plants on their campuses, thanks in large part to the hard hitting Campuses Beyond Coal campaigns of Sierra Student Coalition. These plants are responsible for dangerous pollution including mercury, carbon dioxide, arsenic and lead and can lead to more severe asthma attacks, bronchial infections and cancer.
Students can help reinvent the American economy by pressuring school administrations to invest in clean, safe and reliable energy on campuses from California to Connecticut.
Here's the latest example of this amazing work by students -- from Michigan State University and Sierra Student Coalition Organizer Anastasia Schemkes:
Michigan State operates the largest coal plant on a university campus in the nation, burning approximately 200,000 tons of coal per year. Fortunately for us, it also has one of the largest Campuses Beyond Coal campaigns in the nation with MSU Beyond Coal who has collected over 10,000 petition signatures to retire the dirty, aging plant over the course of their 2.5 year campaign.
As a result of student pressure, the university released an "Energy Transition Plan" this semester that is meant to be their road map toward cleaner energy for the campus. Unfortunately, the plan lacks, well, any real plan at all. In many ways the ETP is a smokescreen for furthering fossil fuel use at the school while talking a lot about clean energy in only vaguest terms.
Students have responded with action, especially as the plan is headed to the Board of Trustees for approval. Along with an 18-foot-tall (yes, close to two stories! -- see the photo) inflatable inhaler, students held a press conference today about the negative health impacts of burning coal.
"I know firsthand how awful it is to have an asthma attack so bad that I've been hospitalized and stuck in a bed with machines helping me breathe, rather than being in class or out with friends," said senior and leader of MSU Beyond Coal Talya Tavor (pictured at the left at one of today's events) who has been suffering from asthma since she was two years old.
"Coal pollution causes hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks every year, which is why MSU must be a leader by cutting their toxic air pollution and switching to healthier energy sources starting now."
In addition to the inhaler sitting just behind "The Rock" -- an iconic campus landmark they had to camp out all night to paint and defend -- the group created a field of 37 10-foot-tall sunflowers to represent the 37 deaths per year in Ingham County from coal-related illnesses and a banner representing the 10,547 student petitions the group has collected asking the administration to retire the dirty coal-burning plant on campus.
Later tonight they're hosting a Clean Energy Forum with energy experts from across the state discussing how Michigan can create jobs and improve the economy by being a clean energy leader. They'll also be joined by Bill McKibben, renowned author and activist who you might know from 350.org or those massive protests against the Keystone XL tarsands pipeline, who is skyping in to cheer them on. (You can catch a livestream of the event starting at 7 p.m. ET)
All of this is leading up to the Board of Trustees meeting on Friday where the administration will formally present their deeply flawed plan. It's so bad that the students who were initially invited to participate in the Steering Committee refused to sign-off on the final version.
Michigan State has a long way to go to be a clean energy leader, but students are still hopeful.
"We know MSU can be a clean energy leader. Our vision is not just for cleaner air on campus, but to put Spartans at the forefront of building a prosperous clean energy economy for Michigan and being a model for our peer institutions," said Tavor.
And you can help: Take action today by signing a petition to the university's Board of Trustees urging them to take real steps to move MSU to 100% clean energy starting now.
Photos by Kim Teplitzky
Follow Mary Anne Hitt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/maryannehitt
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/02/sierra-club-become-super-pac-4-comments-26-million-donation-fiasco/
So we can see a glimpse of how the whole thing works.
What kind of money pays for inflatable toys and all that marketing? A: The kind of money that wants skyrocketing prices for energy, as rising prices means rising profits. Which companies are doing this? A: The ones that own the coal plants now! : GE, Florida Light and Power, Suncor, BP, etc.
Green energy is not run by tree huggers, but by the largest energy companies in the world. Welcome to the 'Green Industrial Complex'.
As one poster points out, nat gas will lower pollution a lot with only small increases in cost.
On the cost of alternative: have you included wind power on the Great Lakes in your assessment using newer, more effective turbines? Have you included nano solar devices that cost less than $100? Have you included energy conservation methods in your calculation?
However, your list of companies is dead on. Therefore, we must turn not to large mega-watt providers but to locally-owned and operated, distributed energy units. Running a cottage is good enough for that cottage. It's one more building off the grid.
With our current engineering abilities, every form of energy has a downside. I personally see Nuclear as the best option long term, with radioactive waste stored in salt domes. I would love to see more work done on thorium molten salt reactors (much safer "failsafe" design, radioactive waste cannot be turned into weps, radioactive waste does not have near the half-life of refined Uranium). For the time being, that option is out the window, because people are so afraid of nuclear and nobody (except India) wants to spend any money designing a modern molten salt reactor (US had an operational one in the 60’s for experiment purposes only).
That really leads us back around to gas (in the US). It is a dense fuel source, there are large domestic stores, we are good at extracting it, and it is (cheap) good for the economy. At this point in time, the benefits of natural gas far outweigh the downsides – so get ready to see it used for the majority of our energy production for 50+ years.
That is, unless the laser lab out in California actually creates sustainable fusion.
Coal - By FAR the dirtiest of the carbon sources, strip mining destroys large areas of natural habitat.
Oil- Carbon emissions, drilling scares, 12 millions barrels per day from OPEC (taking all of our money!)
Solar - Carbon Tetraflouride waste during production (much worse to the atmosphere than CO2 or methane), probably not scalable to our energy needs, should still be widely used in building applications.
Wind - Uses a bunch of resources & energy to produce & install, not really scalable to our energy needs.
Hydro – Completely destroys river ecology, large dam projects are extremely expensive.
Geothermal - Large scale drilling into water tables required, not really scalable with current demand.
Nuclear – Expensive, produces radiation, ever present nuclear meltdown threat.
If we could theoretically get 100% of our needs from "green" sources and completely cut off carbon based fuels, we would need to sharply increase battery production world-wide. Making and disposing of batteries is bad for the environment.
Rooftop solar, offshore wind, waste bio char and efficiency are all the way to go. Cheaper, 24/7, forever, clean and safe.
Only fossil and nukes bribery are slowing us down.