Over 300 young people and students showed up at Lansing last weekend for Power Shift Michigan, an event intended to give activists, students, and community members a chance to take action on climate issues. Power Shift events are also taking place in other states this fall, such as Virginia and Missouri, all following up from the national Power Shift conference and rally that took place at the beginning of the year and brought more than 12,000 young people to the U.S. Capitol.

During a rally on Sunday, October 11th, Michigan students marched to the state capitol, carrying banners which said, “Senators Stabenow and Levin: We Want Bold Climate Action Now” and “Michigan wants Green Jobs Now.” Participants also signed hundreds of post cards and wrote letters to the two Senators, telling them that the youth of Michigan want strong, comprehensive climate legislation in 2009.

Not content with carrying signs, students also incorporated community service projects into the weekend's activities: 

• A bike co-op was started for the City of Lansing: two days after the conference the Power Shift committee was told that people have already begun to use the co-op for alternative transportation methods
• An urban garden was planted that the Michigan State University students will help maintain
• GreenNation was launched to address social equity through the green movement

Power Shift Michigan was covered by The Collegiate, Central Michigan Life, BusinessLansing, The State News, WLNS, and The Detroit News. The Power Shift Michigan site also has video uploads and blog entries about the event. 

The Sustainable Endowments Institute's new green rankings are out, and there is some good news: With all the focus on sustainability in higher education over the past few years, grades are going up. Just over half of the schools surveyed earned an overall grade of B-, compared to only 38 percent in last year’s report. The average overall grade this year is a C+, but 26 schools received the top grade (A-), including Amherst, Harvard, Pomona, University of Washington and University of New Hampshire.

Like last year, the report comes on the heels of a variety of rating systems. Sierra and Greenopia have their own (less rigorous) versions ranking the Top 20 and the 100 largest, respectively, and AASHE has just launched its STARS tracking system for schools to join. Last year, we released the Campus Report Card, which showed improvement on the operations and facilities side of greening, but a lag in curriculum development.

SEI’s report, now in its fourth year, only covers 300 schools in its ratings, leaving out the other 3700 colleges and universities in the U.S, although 32 new schools petitioned to be added this year and are ranked accordingly. It's worth noting that these 300 schools are chosen not on the basis of extraordinary projects or the extent of their efforts—though many are pack leaders—but on the size of their endowments.

The Institute notes, “The profiled schools have combined holdings of more than $325 billion—approximately 95 percent of all higher education endowment assets. Widespread investment declines have impacted almost all schools, with the Report Card finding average endowment value dropping by 23 percent in the past year.”

Its focus on the endowment is the most useful feature of SEI’s research. That enormous pool of money allows the wealthiest schools to support new research and endeavors that might not otherwise get the funding they need. Harvard, for example, reports that it invests in renewable energy companies, and “allocates a portion of the endowment to private equity and natural resource investments that seed companies and/or ventures that may take environmental and sustainability factors into consideration.”

But highlighting only the wealthiest or the largest schools is fraught with its own issues. As the Chronicle and others have pointed out over the years, sustainability is an extremely difficult thing to track, and an even more difficult thing to grade, particularly when looking at an entire campus. For example, if the college is planning to erect a half dozen new buildings that will certainly increase the energy needs of the campus, even if they are built according to LEED standards, should the school's grade go up or down? 

And what about the small schools, lacking in deep pockets but with commitment to spare?

Mitchell Thomashow of Unity College notes the importance of university investment, writing that colleges serve as dynamic economic multipliers, becoming places “where businesses and faculty work with students and community members to develop innovative entrepreneurial approaches.” However, Unity, which received a B on SEI’s report, wasn’t graded on its endowment because it didn’t meet the minimum threshold of $16 million in assets. It also received a D in the transportation category because its 24-car fleet doesn’t include any hybrids, and because “most people walk to their destinations on campus due to Unity’s small size.” Does this mean that Unity's students and staff aren't invested in their community, or that they are emitting more carbon dioxide during their commutes? Quite the opposite. But SEI's system isn't designed to take these small-school factors into account.

The hope is that as sustainability enters the mainstream, expanded systems like STARS will more comprehensively rate these colleges in a way that takes into consideration factors beyond finance, as well as providing a more common standard for measurement. Without those two factors, measuring sustainability won't be possible.  

Yesterday, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar formally announced the creation of an Office of Youth within the Interior Department to create and manage programs that are intended to get youth working outside again.

“The new office will build our programs, expand opportunities for young people, teach them to hunt and fish, and help us coordinate our efforts across the bureaus,” Secretary Salazar said.

It is hoped that these programs will introduce youth from all backgrounds to America's national parks and forests, instilling an ethic of nature conservation and volunteerism, as well as creating new opportunities for employment. Salazar, who headed a similar youth program in Colorado, says, "Still today, I hear from the kids who went through that program –- many tell me they would never have gone to college, let alone landed a job in natural resource stewardship, if it were not for that program."

Heather White, Director of Education Advocacy for National Wildlife Federation, notes that this kind of program will address a vital need to connect kids and families to nature. "In the past 20 years, time spent in the outdoors by youth has been cut in half. Meanwhile, the average 8 to 14 year old spends 6.5 hours a day plugged into some type of electronic media," she says. "Engaging youth outside is important to our public health, our economy, and the future of conservation."

Image credit: stock.xchng/markvanpay

A new amendment to the 2009 energy bill is designed to fund job training at community colleges in renewable and alternative energy fields.

This amendment, sponsored by Senator Wyden (D-Ore.) would authorize $500 million ($100 million per year for five years) to ensure that workers are ready to create, install and maintain wind, solar, biomass and geothermal projects. Once passed, the bill authorizes the Department of Energy to fund programs at 1,200 American community colleges, with half of the funds going towards schools who already have strong programs in place. 

A letter sent on Monday by National Wildlife Federation to Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, supported the inclusion of provisions for community colleges and stated, "This amendment would establish a community college-based training and education program for sustainable and alternative energy technologies such as wind energy technicians, energy auditors, geothermal energy technicians, and energy efficient construction."

Organizations such as NWF and the American Association of Community Colleges also point out that this amended bill supports education and training for workers in sustainable agriculture and farming. Recent articles in ClimateEdu and the Chronicle of Higher Education have explored the issue of teaching sustainable agriculture, but focused on liberal arts schools like Warren Wilson College and the University of Montana. Community colleges have largely stayed out of the farming arena (Central Carolina Community College being one of a few notable exceptions), but may soon be able to take advantage of federal funds for such projects.

However, such a day is still far off. The New York Times reports that the bill is still in early drafting stages, and due to the inclusion of mandatory limits on carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade market, lacks Republican support.

In his inaugural speech, Barack Obama made no less than three separate mentions of the climate crisis, noting that as president he will lead the nation to "roll back the specter of a warming planet."

Now that we're in the first few days of a new administration, there are several events coming up in the next few months intended to bring students together against global warming, the soonest of which is the National Teach-In, which includes a webcast kick-off, a teach-in on February 5th, and a live web interface with members of Congress. It'sGettingHotInHere reports that so far 140 schools have signed up to plan events on campus, engage with their legislators, and unite around concrete policy recommendations in the First 100 Days.

Certainly, as Eban Goodstein points out in a recent Inside Higher Ed piece, we can't assume that university and college students and faculty bear the full weight here, particularly when it comes to advocacy. The National Teach-In was never intended to create or support the "perfect climate bill," or strong-arm politicians into voting for a particular piece of legislation. Rather, it is intended to get the youth who will likely face the greatest consequences of climate change working on solutions.

Scientists tell us that we have waited too long, that for thirty years they have searched for a plausible explanation of climate change that isn't based largely on CO₂ emissions. They haven't found one. And in order to stabilize the climate at a level to which we can adapt, without serious damage to the planet, we must act within the next 2 or 3 years.

Goodstein says, "The science is clear; the solutions are not. Political action is needed to lower the risks of catastrophic consequences, but what kind of action? How much mitigation and how soon? How much adaptation and what kind? Can we insure a “just transition”, protecting low income people from higher energy prices, and compensating workers who might lose their jobs?"

Doing such calculations is really the work of universities. If not there, where? After yesterday's inauguration, how is your campus going to address Obama's appeals to "restore science to its rightful place"?

On Tuesday, November 4, millennials became the most powerful voting block in the U.S and among their concerns, according to Power Vote organizers, a non-partisan Get Out the Vote campaign, were clean energy, climate protection and green jobs.

An estimated 22 million millennials (youth, ages 18-29) turned out to the polls-- 2.2 million more than in 2004, according to preliminary findings of the Tufts University Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Youth voter turnout in 2008 represents an estimated 6% increase over 2004 levels and an estimated 13% increase over 2000 levels. It may be the second highest youth voter turnout since1972 when the eligible voting age was decreased from 21 to 18.

Among the dynamics of the election were the non-partisan efforts to turn out the youth vote such as MTV’s Rock the Vote, the PIRG’s New Voter Project and the Energy Action Coalition’s Power Vote initiative, organized by more than 30 national and regional campus and youth organizations, including the National Wildlife Federation, whose Power Vote team was led by the Federation’s campus field director, Lisa Madry.

The Power Vote campaign, organized on more than 300 campuses, generated 341,127 pledges from youth organizers who promised to vote and to hold whoever was ultimately elected at all levels of government in 2008 accountable for shifting to clean energy and creating millions of new green jobs. The number of pledges collected equals about 1/6 of the total increase in the youth voter turnout in 2008.

The millennial vote may have swung the US election overall. For example, Obama won the youth vote by 50 points in North Carolina, turning the state from red to blue, but lost every other age group in the state. Similarly, in Indiana, Obama won the youth vote 63 to 35, but lost every other age group. Overall, voters chose Obama over McCain by a much narrower margin (52%-46%) than millennials who voted two-to-one (66 to 32%) for Obama.

Mr. Obama has only a few short months to prepare for inauguration and all the challenges that come with it, of which environmental problems are only one piece. In the past, he has called for emissions reductions 80% by 2050, a cap-and-trade market for carbon emissions, higher efficiency standards, investments in renewable energy, and a smarter electricity grid.

As he puts together his staff and his policies, what would you like to see? What are your priorities for the first 100 days? The first year? A possible second term? Do you agree with Mr. Obama when he says that this is a time for sacrifice and service? This post is an open thread for you to express your thoughts, concerns, demands, and yes, hopes.

Here are a few links on Obama's declared goals for our "planet in peril" for you to browse:

The Obama Energy Speech, Annotated: DotEarth
Barack Obama's environmental platform and record: Grist
Obama Hits Hard on Efficiency Themes in Debate: Green Inc.

And some food for thought: To the Next US President, 100 Words for 100 Days

In case you haven't heard, Al Gore addressed students across the country tonight in a live webcast from the Energy Action Coalition and the PowerVote campaign, asking young people to continue the work they're doing to change the way we think about and use energy, and make climate issues the driver of their vote in this election.

It's a short broadcast (less than 30 minutes), but one worth watching, especially if you haven't heard Gore weave together the economic, energy, and climate crisis.

Watch the Gore-Cast

As part 2 of last week's post on college sustainability rankings, here's a little more information on the Sustainable Endowment Institute's newly issued Green Report Card.

The Sustainable Endowments Institute relies heavily on a small core of schools for its College Sustainability Report Card: "colleges and universities with the 300 largest endowments in the United States and Canada, representing more than $380 billion in endowment assets, or more than 90 percent of all university endowments."

While 300 is only a small fraction of American colleges and universities (about 13%), the study is designed to examine how schools are using their endowments to work towards sustainability, NOT to rank general sustainability trends. (For a more general overview of trends in higher education, have a look at NWF's Campus Environment 2008 report, which covered more than 1,000 schools of all sizes and types.)

That said, there are a few obvious patterns among the schools who participated. In the good news category, two of every three schools that were evaluated in 2008 and 2009 have improved their scores, with more than four out of five improving since their 2007 rating.

Also good, a majority (66%) of these schools have full-time staff dedicated to sustainability efforts on campus, and most have signed the ACUPCC or made a commitment to massive carbon reductions. Green building, local food purchases, recycling and alternative transportation projects are on the rise. And most importantly for the SEI, endowment transparency and investments in renewable energy are increasing at many schools.The list of all-star schools shouldn't surprise anyone: Brown, Columbia, Harvard, Dartmouth, Middlebury, Oberlin, Stanford and and University of Colorado are a few of the top 15, and they well deserve the recognition.

Of course, there are still a few F's among the accolades, some going to schools such as Brigham Young University, Howard University and Hillsdale College, which did not respond to the survey. While the F doesn't mean that these schools don't have any green efforts -- for example, BYU does have a recycling program and student eco-clubs -- it does mean that those efforts are not obvious enough for SEI to track them without the school's involvement, and that the school hasn't yet made it a priority to lead by example. Because the report is intended to rank the schools with the largest endowments, a school's non-participation didn't exempt it from inclusion, as with other sustainability-tracking reports.

Perhaps one of the most refreshing things about this particular report is its web navigability. The site, which is hosted outside SEI's, is designed to be a destination for the competing schools, who can pull up side-by-side comparison charts between any set of schools to compare factor by factor, or year by year. Rather than presenting results in document form, the site makes it easy to move from school to school and filter summaries.

As we and others have discussed before, the plethora of ranking systems raises difficult questions. How do independent organizations weight initiatives that have varying levels of effect on climate and CO2 emissions? Should curriculum shifts or operations changes be prioritized? Is it unfair to favor administration-led changes and ignore small-scale, grassroots involvement? Or should the programs that cut the most carbon be our primary goal? How do we address globalization concerns and find the balance between social justice and the need for open markets? What about habitat, biodiversity, and water quality?

In my (mostly unqualified) opinion, it seems we have a long way to go towards a holistic and healthy relationship with our natural surroundings, as well as the fuels, industry and machinery which have provided such unprecedented educational opportunity. However, I also think that a certain amount of gratitude is in order for the hard work of university presidents and administrators, students, faculty, reporters, researchers, conservation organisations, and supporting nonprofits, which are finally getting some of the attention they deserve.

A few weeks ago, hot on the heels of our Report Card, came Sierra's annual "Cool Schools" feature, profiling some truly tremendous campus efforts. Days later, Plenty’s Green Campuses 3.0 highlighted a few more. Grist weighed in with a “Top 15” list of schools more recently, and supplemented their offerings today with a special series on eco-activism on campus, which focuses on both student work and operational changes. I could go on with many more illustrious examples of the media (finally!) paying attention to campus climate efforts, but since these are just a few of the publications that have written recently about greening efforts in higher education, and many of them have already gotten coverage on this blog, I’ll stop there. Back-to-school days are here for sure! 

Unfortunately, these articles only rarely delve into the full-length research studies done by university reviewers and nonprofits. The magazine coverage is cool, but not nearly as meticulous in its methodology as some of these studies, as reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education's Buildings & Grounds blog. 

Our Campus Environment 2008 report falls into this second category, by covering over 1,000 schools in the US rather than cherry-picking a few for a top ten list. Princeton Review rated 534 schools in its version, and next week the Sustainable Endowments Institute is scheduled to release its own Green Report Card, which covers 300 schools that were selected based on their large endowments. AASHE is in the pilot stages of another system, called STARS, which is intended to create a common standard for measuring sustainability in higher education. For a more in-depth comparison of the differences between these reports (and a few additional ones), see this exellent article from Inside Higher Ed, which explains the differences in methodology and intent of the various systems. 

The idea of rankings and ratings can be a sticky one. When dealing with so many schools, impartiality is usually easy, but deciding how to weight factors is definitely not. Because we here at NWF’s Campus Ecology tend to focus on climate issues as the greatest threat to wildlife and our own human habitat, we are more likely to prioritize renewable energy purchasing than something like a small-scale local food co-op, since the first is more measurable and directly related to reducing GHG emissions. However, that small food co-op may be student-driven (as opposed to a facilities dept. decision), and therefore more likely to engage youth leaders that will go out in to the world and effect all kinds of change. It is also more personally relatable, since such food usually tastes better and puts local communities on a more direct path towards overall sustainability. Depending on the values of an organization, prioritizing is difficult, and it’s rare that any single entity can cover everything it wants to in a coherent way. 

That difficulty is why we're glad that campus environmental work is getting so much attention. From the outside, it probably looks like a lot of noise and competing reports, but most of us in here tend to look at it as filling in each others’ holes, raising new solutions and doing our best to support the colleges at the forefront of investing in a new energy future. Surely, it’s a wonderful development that 2008 seems to be one of those years when forces combine.