As the EPA forces the College to close the current coal-fired boilers that power the Central Heating Plant, the College has been forced to make a decision about what kind of energy future it wishes to create. All indicators suggest that the College will be pursuing natural gas boilers, despite major student opposition over the ethics of fossil fuels and fracked natural gas in particular. In response to these concerns, the College has created a process through which student concerns can be voiced. This process, as demonstrated by the “Where are we and how did we get here?” talk on Monday, is not a process where students, faculty and staff can share their concerns, but instead a way for the College to legitimize a highly questionable decision and pretend that it was made with the consent of the community. We do not consent to this plan given the undemocratic process by which it was reached, the serious methodological flaws it holds and the unethical and criminal behavior it embodies.

A little background: Our college is currently heated by a central heating plant that burns coal. Due to more stringent EPA regulations that will take effect in 2015, our plant will be unable to operate legally. Due to the imminent closure of the coal boilers, the College has committed to transitioning off of coal. The current proposal is to install natural gas boilers to meet our full heat needs, then installing alternative energy systems in seven regions of the campus over the subsequent years to achieve our carbon neutrality commitment of 2025. The Board of Trustees is slated to come to a vote on this discussion at its winter meeting, Dec. 6–8, here in Oberlin.

First, a discussion of the College’s current plan, which is woefully inadequate. Too many things are being left unsaid and unconsidered. At the root of the question of what we will replace the coal boilers with is the question of finances: How much capital are we willing to spend? So we ask: How much is the school willing to pay to enact its values of sustainability and integrity? If we can put forth (and raise) $24 million for a state-of-the-art jazz building, why can’t we do the same for a state-of-the-art heating system that pushes the envelope and upholds our reputation as a sustainability leader, and preserves a livable future? If we claim we are willing to act to stop greenhouse gases, why are we not also acting to protect Ohio’s watersheds by refusing to support hydraulic fracturing? The fact of the matter is that the decision over the Central Heating Plant is rapidly revealing Oberlin’s claim to sustainable leadership to be questionable at best.

Oberlin College is not an energy company. We have neither the expertise nor economies of scale to design and implement a plan that is both highly sustainable and cost-effective. The hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have spent on consulting firms over the last decade to advise us on the transition are testament to that fact. This begs the question of why we insist on building and commissioning the system ourselves. Why not outsource it, as we do with our dining service, to an energy company better suited to the job? We could hire a company, pay it for heat instead of energy, and include our carbon neutrality commitment of 2025 in the contract. This would take the burden of construction and maintenance off of the College and make the company legally obligated to use as little energy as possible in order to cut its costs and fulfill its contract. Maintaining a tradition of running our own heating plant is no excuse for disregarding economic realities and environmental imperatives. We’re told that burning biomass, an essentially carbon-neutral fuel, is infeasible; yet, when AFS Biomass, the leading biomass company in North America, looked into our situation, they concluded, “We believe there is a very favorable scenario for possible application of a biomass thermal energy system for at least part of the campus.” The College is pursuing natural gas despite being given other options that are just as feasible, and it is doing its best to make sure those claims are not known. The College’s process is supposedly designed to make sure that the whole community has input on moving forward with this decision. This is not the case. The first session, labeled as a dialogue, consisted of Mr. Rob Lamppa, director of sustainability and energy management, giving a presentation claiming that our hands are tied and natural gas is the only option. Dialogue and discussion, allegedly the meat of the conversation, occurred for 20 minutes at the very end and were dominated by Mr. Lamppa.

Furthermore, this process completely lacks contact with the real decision makers. If our options are being limited by the finances, an unstated argument of Mr. Lamppa’s, then to conduct this process in absence of the trustees, Mr. Ron Watts, the vice president for finance, and President Marvin Krislov is shameful. Those who wield the real financial power in the College need to engage in an honest dialogue with the student body. The process created by the College is instead a smokescreen designed to legitimize the decision that appears to already be made.

Additionally, we need to ask ourselves the question of why this decision is being forced upon us now. The truth of the matter is that we are compelled to act in such an urgent way due to the inattentiveness and short-sightedness of the College. The College convened a committee to investigate closing the coal boilers six years ago and decided against action. This decision is the result of Oberlin College’s failure to be proactive and to enact the values that it claims to hold.

Finally, we are tired of the school offering platitudinous statements about how sustainable we are when we are unwilling to confront the urgency of climate change and the fact that this natural gas will come from fracking. By making this decision, we are forcing other people to suffer so that we may remain comfortable. The full hypocrisy of the College was revealed by Paul Sears Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics David Orr, who joined Mr. Lamppa on stage Monday to answer questions, and who gave an impassioned speech about the urgency of climate change while surrounded by people who were acting as if climate change was not a problem. Gone indeed are the days of the Wellington Rescue.

– David Roswell
-Rachel Berkrot
-Madeleine Dorner
-Alice Fine
-Danielle Joseph
-Jackson Kusiak
-James Luttreli
-Allison Monroe
-Samuel Rubin
-Estelle Weiss-Tisman
-Zie Kandler
-Danny Rosenberg Danieri