Walk the Walk don't just Talk the Talk - why environmental scientists should set an example

A couple of years ago, I was involved in the organization of a major environmental conference, and we went through excruciating steps to make sure all the food and drink supplied was as environmentally friendly as possible -- locally sourced, organic with as small an environmental impact as possible. Although this was appreciated by most of the delegates, we were shocked when
several environmental scientists and conservation practitioners demanded to hand back their meal
packs and have their money returned, so they could buy food at the local burger bar. We told the
delegates in question that (a) as the food had been ordered and paid for, the NGO organizing the
event would basically have to pay for the cost and make a loss, and (b) we would not be able to resell the food and would have to dispose of it. (Although in the end, we had so much returned we
found a local food bank willing to take a proportion of the returned food, so it was not all thrown
away.) This, however, did not make a difference, and they demanded a refund for the sake of a few
dollars savings with an extremely environmentally unfriendly vendor.

The conference also had an optional “carbon fee” that went towards replanting and wetland
restoration projects, in a bid to offset the environmental impact of delegates jetting around the
world. Unfortunately, few participants subscribed to the scheme. These “ungreen” behaviors had a
big impact on myself, colleagues and students who were helping to organize the meeting. These
practitioners in question were talking about environmental protection and sustainability in the
meeting rooms, yet when it came to it, did not “walk the walk” at a very basic level in their personal lives.

I have also seen this at a university level. At a retreat to discuss developing environmental
programs, a colleague (who went on to become our university’s lead on sustainability on campus) and I went through a trash can after the meeting to pick out all of the aluminum cans that had
been tossed in the trash instead of the can recycling bin right next to the trash can. I’ve also seen
several environmental departmental colleagues from my neighborhood drive past me as I walk the
35-minute walk/10-minute cycle to campus, even though there is a campus bus stop at the end of
our street. If a group of faculty in an environmental department cannot be bothered to make a
minimal effort to recycle, or travel more environmentally responsibly, what hope is there with the
general public?

My final grouse – a common one among department faculty -- is with the building our department is housed in. The flickering lighting, the leaking roof (although now asbestos free), the  cracked flooring, dripping faucets and the best petrochemical –based fixtures the 1960s and 1970s  could provide. Quite frankly showing new environmental studies students or visitors around the  building is almost the equivalent of trying to  impress them by picking them up in a rusting Hummer. It’s a bit of an embarrassment.

Since 2007, my university has laudably pledged that its new buildings on campus would be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver Certified, and thus should have design features and materials that conserve both energy and resources, plus minimize waste. Buildings are sprouting up all around our campus -- blink and there’s a new building. So why doesn’t the university invest in a truly green building to house, and showcase, its environmental programs, i.e. a LEED Platinum Certified building. Other universities in the state have such buildings, but not us, despite having the largest Environmental program in said state. Such a building would be advantageous for marketing our programs for students, and well as serving as a teaching tool.

One of my undergraduate students did a small survey (n=68) of  our students to gauge their support for such a building. When asked, "Would you like to have a 'green' building on campus?" an overwhelming 85.3% said they liked the possibility of having a "green" building on campus. Half of those strongly supported the idea; less than 3% were against the idea.

This was despite the fact that half of those surveyed thought that such a building would cost substantially more -- 16% thought they cost less and 35% didn’t know. However, a staggering 94.1% believed that a “green building” would be good for the university's image, with 69.1% stating that it would be exceedingly positive. Only one person thought a green building would not help the university’s image at all. So this preliminary information suggests there is support from the student body. Sustainability features prominently in our university's new vision statement, so come on administrators, walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk.