ON THE STUDENT SIT-IN, COAL, AND WUSTL (Washington UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS) INTEGRITY - BG - APRIL 18, 2014
I have been asked by a number of students to share the call below, and here, to sign a petition of support for the sit-in. (There is also a rally Saturday 4/19 at 3 PM on Brookings Steps). This does not commit us to particular demands, but affirms our commitment to science, public health, sustainability, and social justice (words we often say around here, but which ring hollow because they are systematically undermined by our relationship to the fossil fuel industry). What follows are my thoughts on this.
In 2008, many WUSTL faculty members – invoking both science and gender equality – bravely protested an honorary PhD given to anti-feminist anti-evolution extremist Phyllis Schlafly. Yet today, the work of the coal industry against climate science (and against public health, and by virtue of the patriarchal form of extractive industries everywhere, against women) is infinitely more extreme than Schlafly. Our relationship with the coal industry has become institutionalized complicity which undermines our integrity and credibility when we talk about climate change, science, health, medicine, or sustainability.
The IPCC (UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) has just released another report which highlights the urgency of confronting carbon emissions in the next decade. The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) has also established a consensus position that drastic steps need to be taken to address carbon emissions and global warming. Even conservative economists argue for modest policies such as carbon-pricing (or tax). Former Republican mayor of NYC Michael Bloomberg has signed on to Sierra Club's 'beyond coal' campaign, a move summarized on the memorable post-Sandy cover of Business Week in November of 2012: "It's Global Warming Stupid!".
Peabody, Ameren, Arch, and the rest of the fossil fuel industry fight against scientific consensus and even modest policy proposals with lobbying, PR, anti-regulation lawsuits, and public disinformation. (The most recent publication of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, ACCCE, of which Peabody, Arch, and Ameren are members, is titled "The Social Costs of Carbon? No, The Social Benefits of Carbon"). This would be funny if it were not so scary. These companies should not be using their money to distort the core mission of American universities. By allying with the coal industry, branding, and lobbying, we are positioning ourselves with anti-science extremists.
Peabody alone spends at least as much per year ($3-5 million of late) on anti-climate lobbying as the one-time payment (reportedly $5 million) made to cajole WU into embracing the 'clean coal' fallacy. As one colleague suggested, If we are going to sell our credibility and integrity, at least we ought to demand a higher price than a year's worth of DC lobbyists. (Though because of lack of transparency, we do not know how deep the money goes or what autonomy has been signed away in contracts with university units. Rumor has it there is a plan to deepen the coal tie perhaps to push the industry goal of increasing coal exports to China, a monumentally bad idea.).
There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be. None of the research under that label comes anywhere near addressing the urgent problem of carbon emissions as recognized by scientific consensus. This is not to question the research that our colleagues do (though none of it should be called 'clean coal utilization'). The students are engaged in an ethical and empirical questioning of our values and our commitment to science and truth, all undermined by our relationship with the coal industry.
Faculty acquiescence to the WUSTL pact(s) with coal is surprising. There is nothing to fear; reason and right are on the side of these students. The integrity and credibility of our administration, our leaders, our board, and our university are at stake. How much is your scientific and ethical integrity worth?
