ENVIRONMENTAL demonstrators have only gotten nuttier over the last several years; thus, I approach with a healthy dose of skepticism any group of protesters pedaling around in powdered wigs. I was surprised to learn that these demonstrators had a perfectly rational request: to change a small percentage of the energy used by U.Va. to renewable wind energy. Their plan for doing so, though, leaves much to be desired.
The proponents of this plan like to argue that it's not radical. They're right about that. The plan is so non-radical, in fact, that if implemented, it will have little positive impact on the environment despite costing tens of thousands of dollars.
Since it is impractical for U.Va. to build its own windmill, the proposed $7 renewable energy fee, which was approved by students this week, would be used to purchase "wind energy credits" on the energy market. The credits are certificates guaranteeing that a certain amount of wind energy will be produced and "earmarked" for U.Va., most likely at a facility in western states like Texas or California.
This sounds great, but the fact is the windmills from which we would be buying our power will be turning whether or not we subsidize them. The renewable electricity that would have been "earmarked" for U.Va. will be produced whether or not we choose to buy it.
America's electric grid is a complicated beast which, as shown by the massive blackouts of last year, no one fully controls.
As if the system weren't befuddling enough, the advent of deregulation in recent years has led to the dubious practice of trading energy from Canada to California to Kansas and back. This was the house of cards on which Enron built its business.
I'm a believer in the power of the free market, but that doesn't include the comic-book power to beam electricity to Charlottesville from windmills on the other side of the continent. What exactly, then, are we paying for?
The only thing that's clear about America's current energy infrastructure is that it's not going to change if U.Va. puts money into "wind credits." Our decision to invest in these credits will not directly lead to an increase in the amount of renewable energy produced in the United States, nor will it directly reduce the amount of conventional energy that is consumed.
The real point of buying these credits is to create higher demand for renewable energy and thus incentive for energy companies to produce it. But our purchasing these credits can't result in more renewable energy unless the energy companies choose to act on the increased demand by expanding their infrastructure. The credits would be a subsidy to an energy company that produces renewable energy; in effect, they would be a charitable donation to a corporation.
Corporate subsidies have long been financed by government grants, not by college students.
There are many environmentally conscious options we should consider before throwing tens of thousands of dollars into the mystical never-land of energy markets.The Venable second graders remind us that there are environmental problems right here in Charlottesville to contend with.
The "renewable energy" money, if its purpose is to better the environment, would be much better spent on programs to clean up litter around Charlottesville, or to encourage more recycling on Grounds -- both options which would yield tangible environmental benefits closer to home.
Even better would be to spend the money on renewable energy research at U.Va. Why should students subsidize the share price of an energy corporation across the country when we could fund energy research right here -- research that would provide new opportunities to Virginia students while enhancing the profile of the University.
Until Virginia's brilliant scientists discover breakthroughs in renewable energy, there are ways for those concerned about greenhouse gases to reduce their personal impact on the environment by carpooling, buying fuel efficient vehicles and riding bikes.
If students consider these options and still feel compelled to donate to wind subsidies, that should be a choice. But tacking a corporate subsidy automatically onto a student's bill is unsound policy. I could support creating an optional "renewable energy fund" to which students could choose whether or not to contribute. But I, for one, will look more closely before throwing money to the wind.
Herb Ladley is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
A statement by 40 Jewish faculty and staff on antisemitism and DEI at U.Va.
By Jewish Faculty & Staff at U.Va. | YesterdayAs scholars and teachers, we know that dissent and debate strengthen our intellectual commitments and moral judgments rather than threaten them. We reject any attempt to deny these basic truths.
KURTZWEIL: Little sympathy for LittleJohn’s closure
By Paul Kurtzweil | 6 days agoWith a new class of students arriving in August, Corner restaurants will face another test of their price discrimination and thus need to learn LittleJohn’s lesson quickly.
A statement by 401 concerned faculty regarding the crisis of President Ryan’s forced resignation
By Concerned Faculty | 6 days agoWe call on the Board to collaborate closely with faculty in appointing an Interim President to guide the university through this perilous time.
