The Student Government Association’s meeting this past Thursday included debates over two issues: whether or not to purchase ‘renewable energy certificates’ to offset the college’s use of electricity generated from non-renewable energy sources, and the logistics of the ‘Hope for Haiti Dinner.’
The Environmental Model Committee (EMC) has, over the past few months, crafted a proposal to use this year’s student comprehensive fee fund of $40,000 (the fund is created from the $25 surcharge tacked on to each student’s tuition, which is designated for “Renewable Energy”) to purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs), to offset two years of the college’s non-renewably generated electricity, which amounts to almost 30,000 mega-watt hours.
What these certificates in effect do, according to EMC member and SGA Senator from Blackstone Crystal Garcia ’12, is pay the difference between the price for electricity generated from non-renewable sources, such as natural gas, coal and oil, and electricity generated from renewable sources, such as the sun, the wind and heat below the earth’s surface. The electricity generated from all sources flows through the same national grid, so the college cannot easily purchase only electricity generated from renewable sources.
What the RECs do is pay a provider of electricity generated from a renewable source for the difference in cost between renewably and non-renewably generated electricity, thus increasing demand for renewably generated electricity. The EMC proposed to buy enough credits to cover the college’s entire electricity use over the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years from the provider 3Degrees Energy.
While many representatives supported the EMC’s proposal, some did not.
SGA President Peter Friedrichs and Senator Leland Stillman were among those in opposition, stating that the trend among colleges is moving away from purchasing RECs and towards other ways to reduce the ‘carbon footprints’ of their campuses.
Friedrichs urged the Assembly to send the EMC back to the drawing board to investigate other ways to more efficiently spend the fund.
However, as some supporters of the proposal replied, the purchase would cover the college for two years, leaving the fund with another $40,000 to spend in some other way next year. Although the Assembly did pass the proposal for RECs by two votes, it was not a majority vote, and thus it did not pass.
The ‘Hope for Haiti Dinner’, which will take place in April, was the second main topic of discussion. For this event, students will have the opportunity to forfeit one meal for the benefit of the on-going relief effort in Haiti. Dining Services has promised to donate the cost of each meal forfeited to a charity for use in Haiti, while SGA’s role will be to sign as many students on as possible by tabling outside Harris Dining Hall for one week.
The main point of debate for SGA was to make the event an ‘opt-in’ event or an ‘opt-out’ event. If students are able to ‘opt-in’, they will have to sign up to forfeit their meal. If they have to ‘opt-out’, however, they will be assumed to be participating unless they sign their name, in which case they will not forfeit their meal.
The ‘opt-in’ plan would ensure that students participating in the event actually want to participate, while the ‘opt-out’ plan would increase participation by reducing the chance that a student who wants to participate doesn’t because he never finds out about the event.
While the ‘opt-out’ plan would appear to be the better option for the purpose of raising as much money as possible for Haiti, it would not have as beneficial an effect on the spirit of philanthropy in the student body. While the main purpose of the ‘Hope for Haiti Dinner’ is to raise money for aiding Haiti, fulfilling that purpose would be a hollow gain if it were fulfilled with money ‘donated’ by students who didn’t know if they had donated it and for what purpose.
The fundraising effort would appear less legitimate to most students, and appear to be more of a top-down rather than bottom-up project, if they offered the opportunity of not donating a meal rather than being asked to donate a meal. Students are more likely to organize and involve themselves in other charitable activities if the activities focus on active student participation.
