Is conservation as we know it going to be enough?

Climate change will present new challenges to achieving ecosystem conservation and sound management of natural resources. Thanks to climate change, some species will increase, others will decrease, and the productivity of ecosystems will shift in ways that are difficult to anticipate. (A recent paper about how profound these changes might be, and how unprecedented, can be found here.) When species that we do not like (or are harmful to us and other species) increase, or when species that we use or appreciate decrease, we might want to take action. We might want to counteract those changes if we can. We call this climate change adaptation.

In this post, I discuss whether or not the discipline of conservation biology is up to the challenge of climate change adaptation using the tools that it already has. In other words, can conservation as we know it--the conservation tool kit that we already have--successfully combat the effects of climate change? I'll summarize the argument for both sides, but I think that the "no's" have it, at least for now.

First, we need to define what we mean by "successfully combat." Others may have different opinions, but I think that the best that we could hope for is achieving two things: 1) minimize biodiversity losses, including the extinction of species and the reduction of genetic diversity, and 2) maintain functioning ecosystems that provide benefits for humans, including water purification, recreational opportunities, and productive fisheries and forests. So now let's ask the question again: Is the current state of conservation biology, and the current management that we apply to ecosystems, enough to counteract the effects of climate change and achieve #1 and #2 above?

Yes--it is
We already know what needs to be done to conserve biodiversity and maintain healthy ecosystems. To minimize the negative effects of climate change, we simply need to do these things more and better and over larger geographic areas. Specifically, we need habitats that support populations that are large enough to dip from random disturbances and climate change without going extinct. We also need these habitats to be connected over large geographic areas so that species can move naturally as the climate changes and relocate to keep up with changing climatic conditions. We know that rampant invasive species can directly consume or compete with species that we value and reduce native population sizes. Therefore, we know that we need to control many invasive species.

In the last several decades, we have identified relatively few new techniques for doing (and succeeding) at natural resource conservation. Captive breeding and zoos have become increasingly important, but they are not a substitute for maintaining large amounts of high quality habitat in the wild. In fact, most zoo programs count on the fact that habitats will be sufficiently restored for large-scale reintroductions. We have learned quite a lot about the relationship between people and nature and how to incentivize conservation. In many cases, we even need people and their economic activity to enable and advance conservation (e.g., sustainable timber harvest in a park to justify forest preservation). We also have identified new reasons to do conservation, including the potential to partially counteract greenhouse gas emissions through carbon uptake of forests and other vegetation. But the basic rules remain the same--maintain large, connected places with lots of buffering capacity so that local disturbances, and now climate change, have minimal long-term effects.

No--it is not
While the basic necessities for conservation are quite simple, it's unlikely that we can deploy traditional approaches enough to keep pace with the ecological effects of climate change. Some people think that only parts of conservation biology that truly count as "adaptation" are actions that are *different* than what we were doing before, something beyond business as usual. This implies that most standard conservation practices (e.g., setting aside land, managing invasive species) are not enough because they do not explicitly take steps to counteract climate change. Still, it is possible that our traditional practices could be adjusted according to climate change, such as doing prescribed burning earlier or later in the year as the seasonality of an ecosystem changes. Strategies for controlling an invasive species might also be altered if the invasive benefits from climate change. For example, hand pulling might have kept a species in check in the past but chemical control might become necessary with climate warming.

But even if we made adjustments to the toolbox so to that we use hammers and screwdrivers in ways that we did not use them before. Is that enough, or do we need new approaches all together? Overwhelming scientific data suggest that Earth's ecosystems are already under considerable pressure. Despite the existence of conservation biology, for example, the biodiversity crisis--the growing list of endangered species and increasing number of species that go extinct--continues and may be accelerating. Land is increasingly converted to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that conflict with conserving large tracts of native habitat. Many of our endangered species already have small populations, probably too small to handle the additional stresses of climate change. And it seems unreasonable that massive new corridors would be established over areas such as the agricultural Midwest or urban, coastal California so that species could use these corridors for migration under climate change. There also are some data to suggest that select invasive species, because they are hardy and disperse more easily than native counterparts, might do better under climate change than they did in the recent past. This could lead to a weedier world, and controlling those invasive species could become harder, more time consuming, and more expensive. Given budget constraints, it also seems unlikely that we can just grow the scale of conservation operations, including land acquisition and the number of personnel needed to monitor and manage species adjusting to climate change. If we are already loosing ground without climate change, how can doing more of the same be sufficient?

If it's not enough, then what?
If conservation as we know it cannot keep up, then what? First, we can argue for the expansion in conservation monitoring and activities that would be necessary for it to try to keep up. We need a great deal of research to figure out how to adjust traditional tools to fit with changing climate, and we need an expanded commitment of resources and land to deal with the worldwide threat of climate change. Second, we will need new ideas that directly address the threat of climate change and overcome problems that are insurmountable with traditional approaches. These could include looking for conservation opportunities in non-traditional places, such as in urban parks and backyards. It could include moving particularly vulnerable or valuable species to new areas (where the risks of doing so are acceptable), and it could involve traditional or high-tech breeding to introduce resistant genes or facilitate evolution to changing climatic conditions. We may even need to change our definition of nature itself so that biodiversity conservation happens in more places than just wilderness and higher degrees of human intervention are tolerated for the benefit of particular species and ecosystems that really need it. These things will eventually create a conservation biology that looks very different than it does today.

Nature’s clock and climate change

March in the Midwest and East US was very warm, usually so. Chicago experienced 8 days over 80 degrees, when there is usually only one day over 80 degrees in April. Unofficial reports suggested that spring flowers and leaf flush come to Chicago 5-6 weeks ahead of normal. April turned cooler but peonies in Indiana and Michigan are still blooming two weeks before Memorial Day. The peony is a patron flower of Memorial Day here in the Midwest. As the climate changes further, we might need to find a new flower for honoring the graves of loved ones on Memorial Day.  

So who is keeping track and making sense of this stuff—these anomalies in climate and the timing of creatures? The answer is the National Phenology Network (NPN), a government-funded organization that is collating and investigating one of the most visible aspects of climate and climate change. “Phenology” means “ecological timing” in the parlance of ecologists. The NPN sits in Tucson, AZ but interfaces with scientists, managers, and the public nationwide. Anyone can submit observations to the NPN to help in their research. You could post an observation about the first arrival of a migratory bird in your neighborhood or the timing of lilac flowering in your yard. Postings are made via their public database at Nature’s Notebook. You can also visualize data that others have contributed to the database at http://www.usanpn.org/.

Several studies have shown that climate change is altering the timing of life (see this paper or this one). Spring has come earlier to many parts of the country and world, leading in some cases to mismatches of species (e.g., see this study). Experiments also show that warming can change the timing of two or more interacting species, changing them in ways that affects their overlap and individual success. Take the endangered species, the Bay checkerspot butterfly, for example. When we warmed the Bay checkerspot and its habitat, we found that warmer conditions accelerate the insect and it’s food plants. But that acceleration happened faster in one host plant species than another, increasing the butterfly’s reliance on the second host species, when and where it is available. This result means that warming affects the butterfly itself but also affects its success by changing the timing of its food.

Recording observations about the timing of life is one of the easiest ways to track the effects of climate change. Such observations are a kind of “biometer” (like “thermometer” but measures how creatures perceive the climate). There are several things that researchers need to learn about phenology to maximize the value of its measurement, however. First, we need to learn if shifts that we see in species’ timing are useful changes that represent adaptive (good) adjustments that species are making, or if those changes are maladaptive adjustments that undermine a species’ or ecosystem’s success. We also need to better understand *why* species are changing at all: What cues are they reacting to? What genes or traits control these responses? And why do some species or populations adjust and others do not? Finally, we need to determine how much of the changes in species and ecosystem timing are due to exposure and how much is due to sensitivity. In other words, are species and populations changing because the climate where they live is shifting rapidly, or are they instead finely tuned to climatic variables?

We can look in the future to the NPN for answers to these and other questions. Please help the NPN by contributing your own observations. (Anybody can do this!) And keep an eye on the NPN as they grow and discover new things about our changing world.

Also, check out efforts related to the NPN at the Chicago Botanic Garden, called Project Budburst.

Scientist profiles at LiveScience.com

LiveScience, in collaboration with the National Science Foundation, is running a really interesting series that profiles scientists, what they do and why, and how they got to their position today. You can find all of the ScienceLives entries here. I think that Sally Otto, Marla Spivak, Naomi Oreskes are interesting entries--all are women who question the status quo and are great role models for girls. The following is my ScienceLives story (May 2012).

You have probably heard about the great scientific and social dilemma called global warming or climate change. The climate has changed many times in the past, but this time it is changing rapidly because of chemicals that humans are adding to the atmosphere. All creatures on Earth are exposed to the climate and are affected by it, so they will change when the climate changes. Jessica Hellmann, a researcher at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, and ecologists like her are figuring out how and why creatures change when the climate changes, and what can be done to reduce the negative biological effects of climate change. Hellmann was born in central Indiana and raised in the heartland of the auto industry and agriculture. A Bachelor of Science from the University of Michigan in natural resource management launched her long-term interest in blending basic and applied science. Hellmann earned a Ph.D. from Stanford University and held postdoc appointments at Stanford and the University of British Columbia. She now enjoys research and teaching at Notre Dame. Her field studies take place in the wilds of British Columbia and Oregon and in the mixed-used landscapes of the Indiana Dunes and the greater Chicago area.

What inspired you to choose this field of study?
Space camp, my grandpa’s farm, great biology teachers and a dad who was an engineer all inspired me. Put all those things together and you get ecology, genomic biology, and an interest in environmental policy, I guess. Oh — and my mom was an English major who taught me the difference between "good" and "well." As a result, writing and reading are very important to me. Today, I am highly motivated to write and talk about science in an accessible way.

What is the best piece of advice you ever received?
It sounds cliché, but I remember a high school teacher telling our class that the only reason to do anything was if you really loved it. At the time, the sentiment clicked, and I remember never worrying thereafter if I was doing the right thing or was going to make enough money. I just knew that as long as I was good at what I was doing and I enjoyed it, all would work out in the end.

What was your first scientific experiment as a child?
Figuring out how long a lightning bug could stay alive in a glass mayonnaise jar with holes poked in the metal lid. The answer: Not long.

What is your favorite thing about being a researcher?My graduate students are one of my favorite things about research. My own students might be surprised to hear that, but one of the best things about being a research professor is the opportunity to help young people discover new things and become creative thinkers, strong writers and independent scholars. Grad students are the bedrock of my lab group, and they bring enthusiasm and excitement. I am extremely grateful for every student who wants to work with me. Being a professor is a great privilege and a joy.

What is the most important characteristic a researcher must demonstrate in order to be an effective researcher?
A researcher must exemplify persistence: Try, try, and try again. Get advice from others. Listen to your harshest critics, but build a thick skin that protects your heart from unfriendly critique. Believe in yourself but be humble. Always strive to do work that betters humanity and the earth.

What are the societal benefits of your research?
Society is facing an enormous challenge in global climate change, perhaps the greatest that we have ever faced. As fast as possible, we must learn how to prevent catastrophic climate change and live with the climate change that we have already caused. I study the ecological effects of climate change and other human-caused environmental changes so that we can know which species and ecosystems are most sensitive and why. My students and I then convert this information into strategies and techniques so that humans can protect nature where it needs it. We have an obligation to preserve life on Earth, and we depend on other species completely.

Who has had the most influence on your thinking as a researcher?
I have benefited from many excellent mentors. My graduate advisor at Stanford, Paul Ehrlich, taught me how to pursue excellent research and communicate those findings to the public. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Stephen Schneider, a leading climate scientist who passed away in 2011. Steve and his science- and life-partner, Terry Root, who also works at Stanford, taught me that all the great problems in science have a social dimension. Without reaching out to people, those problems can’t be solved. Steve and Terry also taught me that science speaks truth to power.

What about your field or being a researcher do you think would surprise people the most?
I think it would surprise people to hear that principal investigators are like small business owners. That we spend nearly as much time doing accounting, human resource management, and talking with the public as we spend time in the lab or field. There is a lot more that goes in to running a research group than good science skills. We could stand to teach our students more about these other aspects.

If you could only rescue one thing from your burning office or lab, what would it be?
Samples from our negative 80 degrees Celsius freezer. They are about the only thing that we have that is not replaceable. I remember one time when we shipped some live specimens from the field to the lab via [a commercial delivery service]. They got lost and arrived weeks late — and dead. If I remember correctly, [the company] was willing to pay $100 for not living up to their "next-day guarantee." I thought: "$100! Those bugs were worth millions in blood, sweat and tears!"

What music do you play most often in your lab or car?
I hardly ever listen to music in my car. I’m a dedicated NPR listener and supporter of my local station, WVPE. I listen to music on my iPod though, especially on long runs by myself. The faster the music, the better, but two of my favorite songs are by the Fiery Furnaces.

Winter warming--some like it hot, others not

A study by Caroline Williams and Brent Sinclair of the University of Western Ontario, together with the Hellmann lab, was just published in PLoS One. The paper reports our findings that winter warming negatively affects overwintering butterflies by increasing their metabolism during the months when they are supposed to be resting. Interestingly, we found that some populations of the Propertius duskywing butterfly were better able than others to tune down their metabolism under warmer conditions, partially compensating for the energy drain of warmer conditions.

This paper has several important things to say about the response of species to climate change:
1) Warming during the winter can cause energy drain in insects that reduces their overall fitness and therefore can cause population declines. These effects can occur when a species is not active and combines with climate effects in other parts of the year.
2) Many organisms can partly adjust to climate change by changing physiologically. Figuring out how much they can adjust is a critical to predicting species' responses to climate change.
2) Populations within a single species respond differently to climate change. We should not assume that all parts of a species react to climate change in the same way, yet most of our current models do exactly that. Ecological models of climate change should allow for population differences and include physiological mechanisms such as the effects of temperature on metabolism, survivorship, and reproduction.

These factors matter to human management of biodiversity under climate change--or adaptation of species and ecosystems. It means that we will need to consider population differences when designing management strategies, and we cannot treat a species as if it were the same everywhere across its range. If we were to move species to new locations, for example, we should consider which populations are most appropriate for relocation (or several). Physiological tolerances for climate change also question whether or how much adaptation is needed in the first place. We should not assume that species have no adjustment capacity of their own; instead, we need to measure it.

Click here to see the press release that UWO wrote about our paper.

Click here to see the paper itself.

Visionary of the land to speak at Notre Dame (by Bill Gilroy & Rachel Novick)

Wes Jackson, a visionary and pioneer in sustainable agriculture, will be speaking on campus at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 28, in Jordan 101.

“What is most exciting about Dr. Jackson work is how it benefits both people and nature,” said Jessica Hellmann, Associate Professor of Biology at Notre Dame. “Dr. Jackson’s work reminds us how central agriculture is to sustainability—we have to find ways to feed the world without degrading the land for our kids and grandkids.”

For over 30 years, Jackson has led the Land Institute, a nonprofit educational and research organization devoted to Natural Systems Agriculture. The institute’s research is focused on agricultural practices that mimic nature, rather than dominating or ignoring it, and developing new plant breeds that act like wild plant species while providing food like farmed crops. Its work addresses a wide range of challenges facing industrial agriculture, including soil erosion, climate change, and pesticide resistance.

“Wes Jackson has made it his life’s work to take modern agriculture and turn it on its head, to the immense benefit of both human society and the planet,” said Sara Brown in the Office of Sustainability. “Jackson has had a transformative impact on the way we perceive our relationship to plants, soil, and the natural world as a whole.”

Jackson is the author of several books, including New Roots for Agriculture and Becoming Native to This Place, and is widely recognized as a leader in the international movement for a more sustainable agriculture. In 1990, he was named a Pew Scholar in Conservation and the Environment. He received a MacArthur “genius” award in 1992, and in 2000, a Right Livelihood Award—the alternative Nobel Prize presented annually in Sweden.

Jackson earned a bachelor’s degree from Kansas Wesleyan, a master’s degree from the University of Kansas and a doctorate from North Carolina State University. He established and served as chair of one of the country’s first environmental studies programs at California State University, Sacramento, then returned to his native Kansas to found the Land Institute in 1976.

Jackson’s lecture, titled Why Agriculture Must Take the Lead Toward a Sustainable Future, is free and open to the public, and a reception will follow. It is the inaugural installment of theLecturer in Sustainability program, an annual event organized by the Minor in Sustainability.

The lecture is sponsored by Notre Dame’s College of Science, Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts in the College of Arts and Letters, Institute for Advanced Studies, Office of Sustainability, Center for Sustainable Energy and Department of Anthropology, as well as the Center for a Sustainable Future at Indiana University South Bend.

A previous version of this article was published by William G. Gilroy at newsinfo.nd.edu onMarch 15, 2012. 
See original article at: http://green.nd.edu/news/29770-land-institute-president-to-deliver-sustainability-lecture-at-notre-dame/

Creating a mission and vision statement for our research group

My lab and I recently participated in an exercise that I think might be worthwhile for most science groups. We—grad students, undergrads, postdocs, and research staff—sat down at a recent retreat and brainstormed about who we were and what we were striving to achieve. We talked about specific things that we do, projects that we are working on, and ways that we collaborate with others to do our work. We talked about *why* we do what we do and why anyone—including us!—should care about that work. And then we tried to sum all of that up into some statements that we felt we could all get behind and be motivated to achieve.

In short, we wrote a mission and a vision statement for our lab. It might seem like a strange thing for a bunch of scientists to do, but we realized that our university has a mission statement—Where/how do we fit into that mission? We realized that all of the stakeholders that we work with have mission statements—Do they overlap with our goals and aspirations? How are we distinctive? We figured the only way to answer these questions was to see if we could come up with a mission and vision for ourselves.  After brainstorming collectively, we worked in small groups to come with some suggested text that I later edited, combined, and finessed.

Here’s what we did and how it went…

First, I collected from several webpages some guidelines and suggestions. Most of the guidance out there is for corporations or non-profit organizations, but it was not hard to adopt it for academic purposes.

From some online research, we learned that a MISSION STATEMENT is a description of the purpose for your organization, primarily as it now is and/or will be within the next few years. A good mission statement should accurately explain why your organization exists and what it hopes to achieve in the near future. It articulates the organization's essential nature, its values, and its work. The statement should resonate with the people working in and for the organization, as well as with the different constituencies that the organization hopes to affect. It must express the organization's purpose in a way that inspires commitment, innovation, and courage.

A Mission statement should:

Be a short paragraph;

Express organization's purpose in a way that inspires support and ongoing commitment;

Motivate those who are connected to the organization in some way;

Be articulated in a way that is convincing and easy to grasp;

Use proactive verbs;

Be free of jargon;

Be short enough so that it can be easily remembered or repeated;

Be understandable to anyone who is outside the organization or field.

The statement should answer three questions:

1. What are the opportunities or needs that we exist to address?

2. What are we doing to achieve these needs?

3. What principles or beliefs guide our work?

[Most of the above text is taken/adapted from Radtke 1998.]

Here’s what we came up with—it’s a work in progress and we will review and revise it every year or so. I’m not sure that it does all of the things that good statement should do (it’s a bit long to memorize), but I think it’s a pretty good start…

The Hellmann Lab MISSION:

Climate and other environmental changes demand society’s attention. The world needs leadership in understanding the biological impacts of global change and potential for solutions to those impacts. We believe that decisions about global change must be informed by scientific understanding and public values. Therefore, we: 1) develop and deploy cutting-edge science to understand the changing natural world, and 2) engage diverse stakeholders in conversation about solutions to environmental change.

A VISION STATEMENT, in contrast, looks at least five years into the future and defines a future state. It is an articulation of a world that the organization and people are working toward, not what is expected to happen now. It should be written in a manner by which people, at all levels, can be held accountable. (Or so says Simon Simek of Start With Why.) We decided to include some kind of statement about our beliefs or goals at the broadest, most successful level, and we tried to make that vision short and punchy. We also tried to make the vision statement distinctive from our mission statement by making it about our aspirations and desired outcomes rather than what we do on a day-to-day basis. For example, Simek says that that Southwest Airline’s vision statement says nothing about flying—so our statement below doesn’t say anything about doing ecology.

The Hellmann Lab VISION:

We envision a world abundant with biodiversity that sustains humanity. To help achieve this, we strive to:

1) Understand ecological responses to climate and other environmental changes;

2) Develop strategies to help people and ecosystems reverse or adapt to these changes;

3) Engage in regular dialog with the public to implement such strategies.

Even more broadly, this also is our vision:

We desire and enable sustainable management of Earth’s ecosystems, for the benefit of all.

Has your group of scientists tried to create a mission and vision statement? If so, I’d love to hear about your experiences! And what do you think of what we created? For that matter, does our vision sound good to you? Come join us!

New carbon emission plan at Notre Dame--the good and the bad

This week the University of Notre Dame made a public commitment to control its emissions of greenhouse gases (as well as reduce water use and trash generation). The article announcing the plan to the university community can be found here, and the plan itself is here.

Here's my opinion on the plan--I'm glad that we now have one, but I don't think its very visionary. I think and hope that we can do better.

The university commits to reduce its *per square footage* emissions to 50% of 2005 by 2030. This plan allows for growth in the footprint of the university that could increase total emissions. These goals will be met by transitioning from coal to natural gas and efficiency gains in energy use on campus, rolled out over the coming decades. Renewables are not part of the plan, despite significant research at Notre Dame on renewable technology and overwhelming data that a transfer toward renewables is a vital part of the solution to the climate crisis. The College of Science Committee on Sustainability also recently put forward a proposal for a large solar array that would produce 8 million kW hours/year, or ~50% of the College of Science's current electricity usage. (The COS is the largest energy user on campus.) That array is not part of the new plan. The only renewable power on campus today are solar roof panels on an engineering building and one vertical axis wind turbine on top of the campus power plant.

On the one hand, the new carbon emission plan is an accomplishment. Making public announcements about greenhouse gas emissions is a first step toward making those reductions a reality. And Notre Dame is not a place to take on a commitment without intending to follow through. Though progressive on nearly all issues of human and environmental rights in its scholarship, research, and teaching, the University has not always been aggressive in adopting those goals through its own purchasing power and its influence in higher education. So this formal embrace of an important global problem is a significant step in the right direction. Another good thing about the Notre Dame plan is that it does not use carbon off-sets to achieve its goals. Many people deserve credit for getting the university to make any carbon announcement, including staff at the Office of Sustainability and undergraduate and graduate students through organizations such as GreeND, Students for Environmental Action, and student government. Faculty voices have been important too.

On the other hand, the plan is not ambitious, and it certainly does not live up to Notre Dame's vision as being a leader in solving the world's greatest dilemmas, social and environmental. Instead, the University appears to have prioritized financial conservatism and (probably) political concerns about appearing too "green" over the opportunity to signal strong climate values. Peer institutions have signed on to larger commitments, including greater investments in renewable technology, and have made their public commitments earlier, in partnership with other universities. For example, 650+ universities have signed the American College and University President's Climate Commitment, but Notre Dame has not. Some universities has stopped burning coal already, making the switch in natural gas (that emits less carbon when burned) and other energy sources more quickly than the Notre Dame plan. For example commitments of other universities, click here. A large solar array like the on mentioned above is already under construction at Princeton and a similar (but smaller) one is going in at the University of Michigan.

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases every day. Each year more is released than the previous year. With each additional ton of CO2 comes a larger amount of climatic change and a greater possibility of catastrophic change. These changes threaten biodiversity and the livelihood of many of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels is, literally, the most conservative thing that we can do--it provides an opportunity to maintain life and our economy as we know it. And universities have a vital role in showing the rest of the world the importance of this problem. They can lead by example; they can convince by their actions. Notre Dame's recent plan just doesn't speak very loudly.

Despite the lack of leadership in this carbon plan, Notre Dame is a GREAT PLACE to study and work if you want to make a difference on environmental issues. The mission of the university is beautifully aligned with efforts to save the environment for the least fortunate and for future generations. For example, we have a new $10M program of research and outreach called the Environmental Change Initiative, and a strong alternative energy program called the Center for Sustainable Energy at Notre Dame. As a faculty member and scholar trying to do her own part to make the world a bit better, I'm most fearful that the new emission plan will deter the best and brightest from our institution and undermine our most central value--to be the best university that we can be. I hope that doesn't happen.

I'm both thankful for and disappointed about Notre Dame's new carbon announcement. I'm a bit worried of what the rest of the world with think of our weak statement. But I recognize that a statement none-the-less is a step in the right direction. Finally, I hope that the announcement will spawn new enthusiasm and activism from members of the Notre Dame family. I'm a member of that family and proud to be.

Below is what my one my colleagues thinks about the new plan.

Dec. 1, 2011

by John Sitter, Professor of English, University of Notre Dame

"To the editor [of the Notre Dame Observer]:

Despite the characterization of the University’s new carbon emissions goals as “ambitious” by the Observer and “aggressive” by the campus Director of Sustainability, the plan announced on November 29^th is not one of which Notre Dame should be proud. A decade ago the Sustainability Strategy might have been moderately progressive in higher education circles. Now, compared to the plans of leading universities doing their parts to address global warming, it looks more quaint than visionary

The first thing to note about our plan is that it makes no commitment to absolutely reducing carbon emissions, “dramatically” or otherwise. It merely promises greater efficiency, not a smaller footprint. The 2030 goal of cutting emissions by 50% per square foot (something Georgetown commits to do by 2020) may or may not result in significant reductions given Notre Dame’s rate of growth. Keeping our plan “really flexible” means avoiding commitment.

Where we aim to cut emissions by 70%--again, per square foot—schools ranging from Cornell to Weber State University in Utah have committed to carbon neutrality by that date.  Others have set that target much earlier: for example, Montana by 2020, Duke by 2024, Florida by 2025.  Brown has committed to cut carbon emissions 42% (total, not per square foot) by 2020 and Yale by 43%, while also setting a target of getting 25% of its energy from renewable sources. While Princeton is within months of completing a large solar array to provide 5.5% of its energy needs right now, the Notre Dame administration concludes that “it doesn’t make sense for us to invest heavily in solar or in wind.” We remain wedded indefinitely to coal, which puts roughly two times more carbon into the air than does gas, while Cornell and Duke abandoned coal earlier this year, and Brown switched from oil to gas.

The new Sustainability Strategy should be subjected to a careful, campus-wide discussion and then reformulated to reflect Notre Dame at its best. We need to be leaders, not foot-draggers, in addressing climate change.  In his eloquent inaugural address, Father Jenkins urged that we strive to make Notre Dame a “ healing, unifying, enlightening force for a world deeply in need,” enlarging our vision so that no one in the future might “say that we dreamed too small.” The current plan for slowing carbon emissions is too small."