Opinion: Hypocrisy in the university’s environmental policy reveals a green-colored facade.
———-

Greenwashing occurs when an organization falsely markets itself as more environmentally concerned than it truly is. No better example of company greenwashing can be found than Nike, which has a notorious history of promoting itself as being ethically and environmentally conscious despite leading a humanitarian crisis of poor working conditions and lack of sustainability. Unfortunately, it appears our school may follow in the green-washed path of its favorite donor.

In 1997, the University of Oregon shared an environmental policy that its Office of Sustainability has since updated once in 2011. The policy outlined seven major areas of focus for the university, including “responsible purchasing, efficient resource usage, minimizing solid and hazardous waste production, and sustainable campus planning and design.” 

My personal favorite is the university’s commitment to planning and design, which states that the university “will endeavor to minimize environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of campus buildings.” This totally explains why we have a new dorm being built seemingly every year! Kidding, Oregon’s commitment to minimalism is thoroughly evident in the “careful attention to environmental performance standards in design and construction” they showed when building Unthank Hall. I mean seriously, who knew one dorm’s elevator could break down that much. (And don’t even get me started on the flooding.)

For what it’s worth, Oregon has long been praised for its commitment to sustainable building, and the school’s most recent constructions have received LEED Gold Standard Certification. This primarily means the buildings excel in energy-efficiency and take sustainable measures. Another plus of LEED Certification is that it’s cost-saving. The U.S. Green Building Council even touts LEED’s economic benefits — like being able to charge college-student tenants more — dare I say more than its environmental ones.

While Oregon’s many sustainability models proudly share their building’s successes, I can’t help but wonder if it’s really all that great to keep building things seemingly just for the sake of doing it. UO is currently in phase two of the Hamilton Walton Transformation Project, and plans to renovate the Knight Science Campus building and the Duck Store. Students have watched as perfectly fine dorms and track fields alike have been torn down just for new ones to take their place. Meanwhile, building and construction contributes to 36% of the world’s carbon emissions.
Another area where Oregon succeeds is in their over-expenditure on the most absurd things ever. Autzen’s$12 million dollar ‘megatron’ endeavor, the largest video board construction in college football, is a prime example of this. Can’t the Board of Trustees think of anything better to spend money on for the university? Like, I don’t know, maybe some more compost bins? The EMU makes an ironic effort to use sustainable food packaging for a building with the hardest-to-find compost site ever. Seriously, I’m still looking. 

Jokes aside, one area that the university actually does well in is the transportation sector. Just a couple weeks ago I received a $45 parking ticket while briefly on campus. Campus parking passes similarly can cost up to $1,035 a year. This behavior is sure to deter students from bringing vehicles on campus.

When it comes to environmental efforts, the university shows a favoritism to gold over their signature green. Capital drive is evident behind a lack of authentic commitment to sustainability on campus. With big money donors like Greenwashing Giant Nike’s own Phil Knight, UO has plenty of resources to make monumental and sustainable changes alike on campus and in the Eugene community. Instead, UO often chooses to expend its funds and energy into preserving its own image: of an endlessly-developing, money-hungry school with values inconsistent to its actions. Greenwashing on campus is worth paying attention to, and the university should be held accountable to making all of the commitments it claims to uphold.