The event was an opportunity to share ideas for promoting sustainability within higher education and within the communities in which college campuses are situated.  The audience included members of the Jefferson County Commission, representatives of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, the Mayor and other officials from Ranson, WV, the President of Shepherd University, Dr. Suzanne Shipley, and other higher ed representatives from APUS and West Virginia University (WVU), and various representatives of the building and development industry.

Rather than provide a few introductory remarks, I chose to provide the audience with a history of the acquisition, renovation, and construction of the buildings comprising APUS’ Charles Town, WV campus as well as some of the other green initiatives implemented by the Sustainability Committee since 2007 (click here to see my presentation).  I explained that our pathway to green construction occurred over time as we could see the demonstrated benefit to the community, our employees, and our energy consumption.

Our first outside speaker was Mr. Ed McMahon who is a Senior Resident Fellow at the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in Washington, DC. In that role, he oversees ULI’s worldwide research and educational efforts related to environmentally sound development policies and practices.  He is considered an expert on the topics of sustainable development, land conservation, urban design, and historic preservation.  In beginning his presentation, Mr. McMahon stated that Sustainability is “about our children.”  According to Mr. McMahon, in order to preserve the environmental well-being of our planet for the benefit of our children, a systematic behavior change is required.  He noted that “Even though the number of people per household has decreased from 3.57 to 2.62 over the last 50 years, the amount of land that each individual home consumes has increased by nearly 60 percent.”  The same trend is seen in commercial space as well.  Though the behavior change that is required to reverse this trend of consumption can be daunting, Mr. McMahon presented several positive examples of environmentally sound development.  One example was the Solara housing project in California which is equipped with solar panels on each unit, reducing energy consumption in the community by 95 percent.  Walkable neighborhoods with close public transportation have also had a significant impact on the success of projects.  Whereas city centers and towns migrated from mixed use to commercial use over the past 100 years, Mr. McMahon noted that successful developments are going back to the mixed use profile in style in the first part of the 20th century.  He also noted for the developers in the audience that top tenants are demanding green buildings and that “no one wants to be known as the last person to build a non-green building.”  Mr. McMahon’s presentation provided some thought-provoking ideas and provided some feasible options for this type of environmentally-friendlier and sustainable development.

Attendees at the Summit also had the benefit of hearing from Dr. Clement Solomon, Director of the Office of Sustainability at West Virginia University.  WVU has a comprehensive and successful sustainability program and Dr. Solomon has made tremendous strides toward incorporating sustainability into all aspects of the university, from operations to academics and from athletics to   community engagement.  Dr. Solomon discussed the various strategies that he and his team have employed to effectively engage the key stakeholders (students, faculty, staff, alumni, community leaders, etc.) involved in making any sustainability initiative successful.  During Dr. Solomon’s presentation, he highlighted the need for prioritizing efforts and encouraged the audience to identify and “pick” low-hanging fruit, the initiatives that are low-cost and relatively easy to execute.  Dr. Solomon provided some very interesting statistics about sustainability (and its execution within higher education) but the one that struck me as most relevant for higher education was that “64% of students say knowing a school’s commitment to the environment would influence their decision to attend that school.”  That is a compelling reason for more traditional, land-based institutions of higher education to pay close attention to the “triple bottom line” (“people, planet, profit”) as they move forward.

To wrap up the day, Mr. Noah Mehrkam, Founder and Partner of Arcland Property Company, presented the ways in which colleges and universities can begin the process of undertaking environmentally sound development projects.  The key points in Mr. Mehrkam’s presentation included the need to identify the key stakeholders in any sustainable development project.  For colleges and universities, “relevant stakeholders” include the obvious groups (students, faculty, staff, alumni) but also the less obvious groups including local community members, local governments, and even local businesses.  In fact, Mr. Mehrkam noted that in many communities, sustainability is driven by a highly engaged local business.  According to him, socially-conscious businesses can bring focus to “developing the urban core” of a community in order to provide for a more environmentally friendly community plan.  Mr. Mehrkam was instrumental to the development of APUS’ first green building, a 45,000-square-foot Academic Center that is currently in the LEED certification process (we have applied for LEED Gold). 

Overall, the Sustainability Summit was a great success.  The outside speakers were top-notch and spoke directly to many of the key functions of the various audience members.  During breaks and over lunch, audience members mingled and these relevant “stakeholders” were able to share ideas with one another, network, and confirm their common goal of creating a more sustainable community within Jefferson County.  I want to thank Beth Gray and the Sustainability Committee members at APUS who organized this first Summit. 

APUS recently completed the newest addition to its Charles Town campus – a 44,000 square foot, state-of-the-art green building which is anticipated to receive LEED certification later this year.  The building features solar panels, low VOC paints and finishes, a reflective roof, a variable flow HVAC refrigerant system, and double hung windows designed to reflect ultraviolet rays, to name only a few of the elements that make the building green.  All furniture in the building was either made or purchased within 500 miles of the site and the building sits atop a restored Brownfields site.  To see more information about the specific elements of the building that make it green, take a look at the article published on the APUS Sustainability Committee blog when the ribbon cutting for the building was held.

As I think of the commitment to sustainability made by the now 677 signatories of the ACUPCC, I am proud that APUS is a charter member.  The initiatives are important if the member colleges and universities can call attention to the benefits of being environmentally conscious.

Years ago, people used to hang freshly washed clothes on a clothes line in their backyard to dry in the air, not in an energy guzzling machine.  They walked distances to visit friends instead of climbing into inefficient vehicles to travel just a few blocks.  Mowing the lawn used to require some muscle and energy from the individual mowing; now we use lawn mowers powered by fossil fuels that can move with little to no effort from the individual.  Children played outside instead of sitting in front of one of several televisions in their homes all day.  Individuals who wanted to improve their health took a walk outside; they did not spend money on expensive gym memberships to run indoors on electric powered treadmills.  Corporations, on the other hand, were not so green, choosing to consume energy as long as it was cheap.

The irony in all of this is that our parents were “green” without even thinking about it.  Today not only do we have to consciously think of how to “go green,” we expend tremendous resources to get there.  In all of the examples above, energy was expended by the individual, not the machine, which is at least one reason why we are now a nation of overweight individuals.  Our lives have become so accustomed to leisure that we think nothing of the practices that are now commonplace (including using dryers, gasoline-powered lawn mowers, and watching television for hours on end, to name only a few).  Many corporations and universities have watched the cost of energy increase as well as the cost to society for an ignorant approach to the merits of conserving energy, recycling, and practicing good stewardship with our environment.

I am happy that many Americans are taking measures to implement greener practices in our daily lives, at our places of employment, and requiring such practices of the companies whose products we purchase.  Taking a walk outside may be helpful to our waistlines as well as the environment.  Given the increased levels of stress, it may also be helpful to our mental health.  Having healthier employees benefits companies/universities in many ways from better attendance through fewer sick days to lower health insurance costs.  In later years, these practices benefit our country through lower Medicare and Medicaid costs for the elderly.  Reducing carbon and other emissions also reduces the incidents of asthma and other respiratory diseases in the young and the elderly.

Mr. Holmes’ blog will provide a forum in which he can share the information related to the construction of the building, the LEED elements of the building, and will even include a webcam to show real-time construction development.  In documenting the progress of this construction, Mr. Holmes will touch on issues related to “environmental policy; sustainable development; natural resource utilization; and responsible, community-oriented growth.”

APUS is a charter signatory to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) and has committed itself to “greening” our operations and helping develop the leaders this country will need to evaluate the many complex issues regarding the environment.  As institutions of higher education begin to realize the need for educating tomorrow’s leaders about environmental issues, many have begun incorporating sustainability into their curriculums in a variety of ways.  I was impressed when Dr. Pollio discussed Mr. Holmes’ concepts for this project, and I believe it will be the first of many ways in which APUS’s faculty and students will integrate issues of sustainability into the curriculum. 

I encourage you to follow Mr. Holmes’ blog as he documents the construction of APUS’ LEED building.  I am sure that he will welcome suggestions as well.

The book begins by outlining sustainability initiatives to date including the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent discussions currently underway for the drafting of another version of that agreement as well as the history and efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) among others.  The authors contend that colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to make a significant impact in the global struggle to address climate change.  Quoting President John Adams’ statement that “’There are two types of education.  One should teach us how to make a living, and the other how to live,’” Bardaglio and Putnam argue that not only does the pursuit of sustainability in college curriculums and business practices make good financial sense, it is an imperative if institutions are to educate students for the social challenges they will certainly face upon graduation.

The authors point out that “as we move from a postindustrial economy that generates wealth through the production of information to a creativity economy that turns information into knowledge, connecting the dots in new ways rather than just producing the dots will yield the highest rewards.”  Providing numerous case studies to illustrate the ways in which colleges and universities have successfully integrated sustainability into their business practices and curriculums, Boldly Sustainable serves as a comprehensive guide for university administrators pondering the worthiness of sustainability.  Interestingly, as the authors point out, college students are often igniting the spark that leads to institutions implementing sustainable practices.  For example, the authors note that “according to a recent survey of entering freshmen, their ‘number one social concern’ is not getting a job but rather protecting the environment.” 

In Chapter 5, “Transforming Campus Life,” the authors tackle the issues related to greening dining halls, dormitories, campus events, and even wellness centers on campuses.  Though as an online institution APUS only has office buildings, the discussion of the impact of greening various elements of campus life is worthwhile for any college administrator wishing to initiate green programs.  Prior to the last energy crisis, APUS began planning and implementing energy efficient solutions in our building maintenance and upgrade plans.  Communicating those initiatives to our staff has been helpful for creating suggestions for other strategies at reducing energy inefficiencies or consumption.

Many colleges and universities are taking green initiatives outside the campus walls to incorporate sustainable practices in their communities.  Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for example, has taken some very innovative approaches to greening their local community, taking it from the “rust belt” to a burgeoning “green belt.” 

Chapter 7 provides a step-by-step guide for successfully reducing carbon emissions on college campuses.  This chapter examines seemingly all aspects of college life, from lighting efficiency to new construction projects and purchasing.  It is in Chapter 7 that the authors examine the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s (AASHE) Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS) which is scheduled to be released this year and will serve as a voluntary reporting and tracking mechanism for colleges and universities to track their progress as they move toward a greener campus. 

As is the case at many institutions, financing mechanisms can often be the biggest obstacle for initiating new projects.  Green initiatives are certainly no exception but as the authors point out toward the end of the book, greening the campus and operations of any college and university often does not require as much money up front as many think and the return on investment (ROI) is typically well worth any initial expense required.  A variety of case studies from institutions around the country are provided as evidence.  The authors also offer suggestions for various funding mechanisms of which many may not be aware.  Power purchase agreements, grants, and collaborations with other institutions and even different industries are among only a few of the funding mechanisms discussed in the book. 

The authors discuss many aspects of implementing sustainability into college campuses.  From discussions of marketing and branding efforts to gain stakeholder buy-in to methods for integrating sustainability into student curriculums, almost any question a college administrator may have about sustainability efforts are addressed.  One of the intangible benefits of the book is the plethora of resources mentioned and described.  An appendix including suggested readings as well as listings of organizations that can offer additional information provide college and university administrators with a wealth of information.  As a charter signatory to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), I found Boldly Sustainable a great resource for additional information on ways of implementing sustainable initiatives.  I would strongly recommend this valuable resource to anyone interested in or involved with campus sustainability efforts.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that “Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing emission sources flexibility in how they comply.”  After identifying the target group, a successful cap and trade program must establish a cap, or limit, on the amount of emissions for all sources within that group. The operational concept of the program rests on the assumption that it will be easier for some companies to establish effective mechanisms for limiting their emissions than for others.  Companies that manage to emit less than their cap are able to sell the difference to companies who are struggling to maintain their emissions within the established cap.

This past Friday, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the proposal but not without President Obama’s intense lobbying in its favor.  A recent Wall Street Journal article notes that the win in the House was not an easy one for the President; indeed, he even had to convince many within his own party to support the proposal.  Many business leaders caution that the bill, if passed in the Senate and codified into law, would cost American taxpayers significantly.  The Wall Street Journal quoted a statement of the National Mining Association which warns of the cost of the program:  “’It will affect every aspect of the American economy, harming our ability to compete in the world and provide secure and affordable energy to American consumers and businesses.’” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in 2020, the annual cost to implement the program will be a $175 per household, an estimate that naysayers contend is very low. 

Though the bill still must pass the Senate before it becomes law, its enactment will have a significant impact on the way that the United States generates and uses electricity.  The bill would not only put a cap on emissions, it would establish a complex trading system like the one described above.  The bill would require U.S. emissions to decline by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.  Additionally, the bill will require that 15 percent of the nation’s energy come from renewable sources by 2020, an obvious boon for the green energy economy that President Obama promised even before his electoral win.

The cap and trade program seems to be modeled on the Clean Air Act of 1990.  According to the Center for American Progress, that program was intended to reduce sulfur emissions that cause acid rain; “it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted.”  The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) lauds the cap and trade program born from the Clean Air Act as a success noting that in the span of only one decade, the program “achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.”  While the EPA approximated the cost of implementing the program at some $6 billion annually, the Office of Management and Budget estimates actual costs at a fraction of the initial estimate, specifically stating the total cost somewhere between $1.1 and $1.8 billion.

The United States is not the only nation attempting to reduce overall carbon emissions by implementing cap and trade type programs.  The Netherlands, for example, has a fairly well-established program founded on two trading systems: one for emissions of carbon dioxide and one for emissions of nitrogen oxides.  Additionally, the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System has provided a multi-country approach to addressing the issue of greenhouse gas emissions through a cap and trade system.

There are several benefits to using such programs to reduce overall emissions.  The ability of companies struggling to meet the standards for emissions to purchase allowances from other companies who have had more success provides flexibility for the lagging company to have additional time to comply with the standards.  Without a doubt, some companies are better-suited to quickly implement changes to comply than others are.  (In completing our own Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, for example, as required by the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment of which APUS is a charter signatory, we realized that our emissions are drastically lower than the traditional brick and mortar universities for obvious reasons.)  Additionally, the cost of purchasing such allowances will perhaps provide incentive for companies to come into compliance with the standards of the program.  Finally, if the federal government opts to auction emissions permits and allowances, it could create a substantial revenue stream which could be invested into research and development of green technologies.  In a March 2009 article in BusinessWeek, John Carey states that the program could generate $646 billion between 2012 and 2019 if the government decides to auction emission allowances and permits.

The program has drawn significant criticism.  House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, told Scientific American that “’Cap-and-trade’ is code for increasing taxes, killing American jobs, and raising energy costs for consumers.”  Indeed, the proposed budget for the program includes a $19 billion increase for the EPA to use on a national greenhouse gas emission inventory which would establish baseline levels in order to establish realistic goals and metrics for evaluation once the program is underway.  U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President, William L. Kovacs, has stated that he believes that Obama’s cap and trade program “’is now a very expensive tax used to transfer wealth.’”  Still others seem to characterize the program as akin to indulgences sold by the Catholic Church during Medieval times, arguing that the program is in fact too lax to make much difference in the struggle to slow down and eventually halt climate change.

I feel strongly that the United States must do something to reduce our overall level of emissions.  There can be little doubt that the world cannot continue to emit pollutants into the environment at the pace we have been.  The United States’ lack of leadership on this issue has impacted the global progress of reducing emissions, particularly with China.  The House bill as passed on Friday will place hefty tariffs on imports from countries that do not meet the U.S. emissions restrictions in their own countries.  Many fear that this provision will harm economic and perhaps political relations with countries like China and India.  While those fears may be well-founded, it is “our world” and environmental issues in China impact the rest of us.  If U.S. companies are held to a high standard, China and other countries must be held to the same standard.

While I support the President’s desire to encourage the “greening” of America, I believe that the economics of the current cap and trade program need to be scrutinized in greater detail.  Given the current recession, I would hope that the Senate provides that scrutiny in their review and that the President would acknowledge and accept revisions to the program if the economic analysis proves to have a greater impact than what the bill’s proponents have indicated.  We did not get into our environmental situation over night and we will not fix it over night.  Let’s not rush to judgment and pass a bill with potentially crippling economic consequences.

At a March 12 meeting of Business Roundtable, an organization comprising CEOs from America’s leading companies which collectively see annual revenues of $5 trillion and employ some 10 million people, President Obama made his intentions clear.  He addressed the group saying, “We all know that the country that harnesses the power of renewable energy will lead the 21st century.  And yet, it’s China that’s launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient.  We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it.  New plug-in hybrids will roll of our assembly lines, but they’re running on battery cells made in Korea.  I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either.  It’s time for America to lead.” 

The average American produces 4.6 pounds of waste (the most in the world) in one day; only about 1.5 pounds of that waste is recycled.  With no federally mandated recycling laws in America, local and state jurisdictions must implement recycling programs with scarce resources and, as of 2006, only about 8,600 curbside recycling programs existed in the United States (actually fewer than in 2003 perhaps due to budgetary restraints facing many local and state jurisdictions).  As President Obama attempts to ignite the flame of sustainability in America, many of America’s economic competitors are well on their way to establishing sustainable practices within their countries and among their citizens.  Several notable examples deserve attention.

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) received £4.5 million to implement waste reduction incentive programs in local jurisdictions across the country.  Additionally, the UK’s new “Recycle on the Go” program has placed recycling bins in public spaces making it much easier for the average individual to recycle waste when not at home. 

The French are world-renowned for their efficient recycling programs – so efficient, in fact, that until recently the UK sent a portion of its waste to France for recycling processing.  Parisians are provided with two bins for recycling, one for glass and one for paper, metal and plastic.  The rest of Paris’ waste is sorted at a facility outside the city and what can be recycled is. 

A recent poll suggests that nine out of ten people in Berlin willingly sort their trash and Berliners are provided with seven different bins for waste.  Similarly effective programs are found throughout Germany.  A hallmark of the German system is that Germany handles all of its waste within its borders, avoiding the use of fuels to transport waste elsewhere for sorting and recycling. 

Some countries have placed much of the impetus and cost of recycling on manufacturers.  Spanish law, for example, requires that food and drink companies pay for the cost of recycling glass containers in which their products are sold. 

The Chinese, as Obama pointed out, are making tremendous strides in implementing sustainable initiatives.  For example, in April 2006 the National Development Reform Commission launched a program targeted at the top 1,000 companies in China which collectively consume some one-third of the nation’s primary energy resources.  The plan would force these companies to make significant strides in implementing energy efficient practices.  A December 2007 Treehugger.com article notes that China’s recycling industry is boosted by average Chinese citizens who are perhaps attempting to supplement their incomes through recycling waste.  Regardless of motivations, there can be little doubt that with 1,338,612,968 people (July 2008 estimate), the Chinese have the manpower necessary to make a tremendous impact on Chinese sustainability initiatives.

As the United States and its international neighbors enter a world in which climate change is a pressing issue, it will be up to nations to work together to find viable solutions.  The European Sustainability Reporting Association (ESRA) is one forum in which European countries are able to share best practices and trends in order to most effectively and efficiently address the issues relating to climate change within their respective borders.  The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a unique initiative in which local jurisdictions can become members and promote more sustainable practices at a local level.  To date, more than 180 European cities representing more than 55 million citizens have become members of this organization. 

President Obama and the United States face a unique challenge vis-à-vis sustainability.  Whereas the United States has once been the leader in most international forums and initiatives, there is little doubt that when it comes to sustainability we have much to learn from others.  With the upcoming discussions scheduled for December in Copenhagen centered on redrafting the controversial Kyoto Protocol, I am hopeful that President Obama will dedicate some of his time to placing the United States at the forefront of those discussions.  Indeed, it seems that whereas the United States once led the world in creating energy-efficient technologies, we are failing to provide leadership in sustainability initiatives.

The green economy, according to the Administration, will “invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions [five million, to be exact] of new jobs.”  President Obama has stated his intention to invest $150 billion over the next ten years in efforts meant to encourage private efforts to establish and use clean energy.  Through this investment, the President expects to not only create jobs (developing, installing, and maintaining new green technologies) but also reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 through the use of clean and renewable energy sources.  Breaking the nation’s addiction to foreign oil is an obvious underpinning of the Obama plan. 

While Obama was still working to secure the votes needed to secure his place in the White House, he continuously espoused his intention to execute the plan described above.  For example, during the second Presidential debates in October 2008, Obama said, “…if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily.”  Interestingly, as Obama made these promises to the American people in hopes of winning the presidency, other world leaders were taking similar efforts.  A November 2008 article in Britain’s The Independent, describes the efforts of British Ministers to increase environmentally friendly investments as a central part of their economic rescue plan.  Similarly, according to the article, Australian officials were discussing execution of a plan that would result in a 3,000 percent growth in green jobs over the next several decades.  Clearly the idea of a green economy benefitting not only citizens who will work within it but also the environment is gaining momentum.

There are significant implications that must be considered, however.  Several economists and conservative politicians and analysts have challenged the most fundamental element of the proposal, arguing that government initiatives to create jobs to bolster a weak economy have historically failed.  Rich Lowry argues in a recent article in the National Review that there are “currently 1.8 million jobs in the economy related to oil and gas.  Why layer more than double – if the Obama goal can be taken seriously – that number of ‘green’ jobs on top of already existing energy jobs?  Even if all the traditional energy jobs disappear, we will have succeeded only in employing more people in energy than otherwise necessary.” 

In a November 2008 article, Kenneth Green, writing for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Obama’s plan to create jobs through a green economic revolution to French economist Frederic Bastiat’s 1850 “broken window” fallacy.  Bastiat’s theory refutes the idea that it is wise for government to try to create jobs and not possible to stimulate a dwindling economy through such means.  The explanation of the theory goes something like this:  A kid throws a rock and breaks a shopkeepers’ window.  Most people feel bad for the shopkeeper but eventually decide that broken windows are not such a bad thing because it creates work for the glassmaker who can then benefit from having work and potentially even creating another job by hiring an assistant.  Bastiat’s 1850 argument contends that the kid breaking windows is not performing a public service by creating work for the glassmaker; the money that the shopkeeper paid the glassmaker to replace the windows would have been better spent investing in his own shop and potentially, in the process, creating jobs himself.  According to Green, “Obama’s ‘green jobs’ plan would indeed create jobs, but it would do so by killing other jobs” (including jobs in the coal, gas, nuclear, and automobile industries which currently “directly employ more than 1 million people.”) 

The green economy will have a significant impact on higher education regardless of whether the effort ultimately benefits the larger economic picture.  President Obama’s so far unwavering dedication to the green economy should be a call to arms for those in higher education who are responsible for preparing the nation’s workforce.  The current workforce is inadequately prepared for Obama’s green economy jobs, a realization of many colleges and universities as they attempt to prepare their students for a competitive entrance into the job market.

The Department of Education has realized this academic shortcoming and has promised to hold a Sustainability Summit no later than September 2010.  The Energy Independence and Security Act which is not yet funded would provide $500 million in loans and $250 million in grants for the establishment of green technologies; half those funds would go to institutions of higher education.  The Obama Stimulus Package finally settled in February of this year will allot between $50 billion and $75 billion to higher education with an additional $16 billion going to federal agencies for research grants and facilities over 2 years.

A year or two prior to the 2008 election, a group of concerned college presidents formed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).  The premise of the ACUPCC is that higher education is in a unique position to address the pending climate crisis.  The purpose of the commitment is to call attention to the issue of global warming and signatories pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions on their campuses.  Some notable improvements have been made at many campuses as a result of participation in this initiative.  Only 637 of the approximately 4,000 institutions of higher learning have signed the agreement to date, but President Obama’s focus on the “green economy” may stimulate more colleges to participate.

Nelson Mandela said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”  In today’s evolving world, it is imperative that higher education keep up with changing trends in the marketplace.  With President Obama’s initiative to create “green” jobs, higher education must accept and respect that and make efforts to create curricula and initiatives that cultivate the educational experience necessary to compete in the new green economy.

The first Earth Day was celebrated on this day in 1970; since then, Earth Day has come to be celebrated around the world.  In the years following the celebration of the first Earth Day, the United States took an active role in the discussion on climate change.  In 1970, Congress established the Clean Air Act to set national air quality, auto emission and anti-pollution standards.  In 1980, Congress established the Superfund, designated with the task of cleaning up hazardous waste sites.  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Pollution Prevention Act which emphasized the importance of preventing, not just correcting, environmental damage. 

President Bill Clinton led several significant environmental initiatives during his years in the White House.  In 1993, he directed the federal government to use its $200 billion annual purchasing power to buy recycled and environmentally friendly products.  Five years later, he announced the Clean Water Action Plan which focused on making America’s waterways safe for fishing and swimming.  (The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in 1972, only 36% of the nation’s assessed stream miles were safe for fishing and swimming.  Today, still only 60% are believed to be safe for these activities.)  In 1999, President Clinton implemented even more stringent emissions standards for vehicles, making them 77% to 95% cleaner than they were the previous year. 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, however, America’s commitment to the challenge of climate change seems to have dwindled as the nation has turned its focus to national security concerns.    The most recent Bush Administration did little to make significant progress in addressing climate change.  In fact, the United States has come under intense fire from many in the international community for its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.  As the Obama Administration settles into office, it will be interesting to see how the nation’s official stance and action on climate change evolves, if it does.  During his election campaign, President Obama pledged to dust off the debate about Kyoto, indicating that he may consider ratifying it (the U.S. has already signed it), joining 183 other parties that have signed and ratified the convention.

In recent years, world leaders have put climate change higher on their agendas.  In fact, climate change was one of the key topics at the Fifth World Water Forum in Istanbul, Turkey held last month.  In December, world leaders will convene in Copenhagen at the United Nations Climate Change Conference to discuss effective ways of mitigating the impact of climate change.  A series of conferences are being held in the months leading up to December’s conference that will set the stage for discussions in Copenhagen. 

Many have called on the U.S. to take the lead in addressing climate change.  Last month, several world leaders convened in Washington, D.C. to call on the Obama Administration to make climate change a top priority for the U.S. in advance of the UN Climate Change Conference.  According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy, Connie Hedegaard said during the visit, “’As soon as the U.S. administration and this House and Senate can…come up with the American position [on climate change], the more strong the pressure will be on all of us’ at the UN conference.’”  In response, Todd Stern, Obama’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, urged Congress to pass climate legislation that would set a precedent for the rest of the world and prove that America is making progress in addressing the issue.

A recent Time magazine article explains that the United States has a unique opportunity, as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and most industrialized nation, to set a good example for the fastest industrializing nations of Brazil, India and China.  According to the article, Brazil, India and China (all three are among the nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol) are on pace to quickly become the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases; interestingly, China and India have stated that they will not take any significant steps to effectively address climate change until the United States does.  This clearly shows that the most significant actors in the debate are attempting to hold the United States accountable for its role in the climate crisis.  The Obama Administration has stated its intention to address the issue of climate change and time will tell if those intentions materialize.  If they do, there seems to be hope that other nations will follow America’s lead.

There is little doubt that the world must address the issue of climate change.  As our world leaders negotiate at the highest levels to find ways of mitigating the damage caused by the phenomenon, businesses, cities and individuals are finding ways to address the problem on a smaller scale.  Through activities associated with Earth Day, individuals can join together to make a difference and bring awareness to the growing devastation associated with climate change.