Enviro-Radicalism at Columbia

Ultimately, questions of how we use our environment involve both costs and benefits and deserve a rational view that I believe is lacking in our society in general, and in the liberal Columbia community in particular.

Over winter break, as New York experienced balmy 60-degree temperatures, I found myself back in the great white north of Canada, feeling particularly ironic as I attempted to negotiate my low-emission Toyota Corolla out of a snow bank while gas-guzzling SUVs passed me with ease. As the fumes of my burning tires wafted into the atmosphere, all I could do was take solace in the fact that my choice to drive a small car was saving the environment while simultaneously hoping that one of those thoughtless, shortsighted SUV drivers would stop and tow my car. The lesson that I ultimately learned from my weeks in the Canadian north was that global warming—and environmentalism in general—is anything but a black-and-white issue. Ultimately, questions of how we use our environment involve both costs and benefits and deserve a rational view that I believe is lacking in our society in general, and in the liberal Columbia community in particular.

At Columbia, there exists an environmentalist attitude that manifests itself in several uncomfortable ways. Last year, after finishing a meal at John Jay, I brought my tray up to the conveyor belt only to find that it had been closed and that a group of student “Eco-Reps” was enforcing a policy of self-busing (i.e. making students clear the food off their plates instead of putting the plates through the conveyor belt), ostensibly because the practice saved water. As a polite Canadian, I bused my tray in silence. However, I noticed several other diners becoming indignant as they realized that the conveyor belt service, supposedly included in their wildly overpriced meal plan, had just been taken away from them.

I realize that complaining about one week of self-busing to save water is as petty as one can get, but my point is not about the action itself but rather the mentality of those who proposed it. As I scraped my food into a putrid garbage can, another diner took up his frustrations with the Eco-Reps, claiming (justifiably, in my opinion) that the services he had paid for had not been rendered. What ensued was a true testament to the problems facing environmental activism on campus. The Eco-Reps were taken aback by the notion that someone could disagree with their environmental ideology, and one member of the cohort even began to utter expletives against the disgruntled diner. While I am sure the Eco-Reps’ initial intentions were well-meaning, the fact that they didn’t even consider opposing viewpoints or provide students with a choice is an indication of just how draconian the push toward green policies has become.

If all that could be criticized about environmentalism at Columbia were this one incident, I wouldn’t have bothered to write this column. However, this year the precedent set by the Eco-Reps became official policy, with John Jay abolishing dining trays out of “environmental concerns,” according to an Aug. 27, 2008 Bwog article. This move goes beyond previous examples of the undemocratic nature of environmentalism at Columbia, showcasing the second major problem with green activism on campus: many “eco-friendly” schemes are ill-thought out and don’t actually do anything to help the environment.

Without trays, students are being forced to make several trips to and from their tables, turning an already crowded place into chaos and inevitably leading to more spills and broken dishes. Aside from the fact that the inconvenience alone probably outweighs the environmental benefits in the minds of many students, I find it hard to believe that John Jay is really saving water or money when it is forced to clean tables and floors instead of trays, not to mention the cost of broken dishware, the production process of which is certainly environmentally “unfriendly.”

Sadly, Columbia’s environmental movement is not alone in supporting overly simplistic and ideological policies—such problems also exist at the societal level. Many greens patently fail to look at the issues rationally, unable to recognize that sometimes the benefits of environmental degradation outweigh the costs. For instance, instead of conceding the usefulness of SUVs in a cold climate, or the positive effect that using a little more water can have on people’s lives, many in the environmental movement have taken the simpler, but less intellectually sound, position that SUVs are bad, hybrids are good, and resource usage is always wrong. Simply put, they are claiming that everyone should live the same “green” lifestyle of those environmentally conscious individuals in New York and San Francisco, regardless of their climate, population density, or economic circumstances.

Environmentalism should be about how we use our most precious resources, with careful consideration given to the benefits versus the costs of our actions. Many greens, however, have corrupted the issue into one of morality, which is dangerous: instead of rational discourse, we find all of our actions being dictated by the ideology of a few who fail to recognize the priorities of others and treat dissent as tantamount to heresy.

At Columbia, environmentalists should practice the kind of freedom and tolerance that they would preach regarding so many other issues, and offer the student body the chance to engage in effective green policies without denigrating those who don’t.

Jon Hollander is a Columbia College junior majoring in economics.
Reasonably Right runs alternate Thursdays.
Opinion@columbiaspectator.com">Opinion@columbiaspectator.com