When it comes to climate change, we hear mostly about the bad news. But right now there’s potential for good news on campus. The President’s Climate Initiative is a climate change commitment that has galvanized students across the continent.
The PCI mandates schools to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and develop practical plans to achieve these targets. The end goal of this institutional commitment is not just to lower emissions, but also to accelerate research and educational efforts into re-stabilizing the earth’s climate.
At U of T we already have many great efforts aimed at reducing our GHG emissions. One good example is the Rewire project, through which thousands of students have already taken the initiative to reduce their own carbon footprint. If students are ready to take the lead on climate change, it makes sense for the leaders of our school to do so as well.
All six of British Columbia’s university presidents have signed the PCI, 585 presidents in the United States have signed it, and most recently Trinity College has signed. As it stands right now, U of T’s administration has refused to sign the PCI.
Comparing the PCI with the Kyoto Protocol is instructive of the challenge to institutional collective action. The Canadian government has informed the public as to why the Kyoto Protocol cannot be achieved: the targets are unfeasible, the costs are too great, the economy is too weak—the list goes on. In response to growing public concern for the environment, the government released its own “made in Canada” approach to the Kyoto Protocol. This localized approach removes binding emissions reduction targets from the policy, rendering the climate change effort mere rhetoric.
Here on campus, the situation is not dissimilar. Several representatives from Simcoe Hall have expressed their genuine concern for the environment, but believe the PCI is not the suitable approach for our university. The opposition expressed to the PCI resembles the Canadian government’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. In response to the growing environmental interests of students, the University of Toronto has pursued a “made in Ontario” approach to the PCI. Although we have not seen this homegrown version, it is said to remove reference to emission reduction targets—the heart of a meaningful climate change plan.
I’ve tried to make sense of why our university resists this opportunity. Our failure to sign on may well be explained by the misguided mantra of our academy. It takes more than great minds to secure a great future: what we also need, according to Professor Stephen Scharper, are great hearts for a compassionate future. We can problematize the PCI until the cows come home (or, perhaps more appropriately, until the sea ice melts). Alternatively, we can see the PCI for what it truly is: an invitation for institutional leadership. As the cerebral center of Canada, the technical solutions are available on our very own campus; all we need is the vision to lead.
Joanna Dafoe is Sustainabilty Commissioner of UTSU.
