Sustainability begs for our attention in everyday life. Committing sustainable acts protects the ecosystem and maintains natural resources for future generations. Despite sustainability’s preeminent importance, large institutions often appear to support going green without accepting any real responsibility to act in cooperation 一 rather than domination 一 of the environment.
The University of Oregon has spilled a lot of ink on its website outlining working groups and important strategies for dealing with the future of environmental health and sustainability. Nonetheless, in The Princeton Review’s top 50 green colleges, UO is not recognized. It is important to note many of the universities included have very small student populations, but Portland State University, a school with a student body over 18,000, is 31 on the list.
There is a disconnect between UO’s “comprehensive environmental policy” and the reality of its execution. Six of the policy’s seven guiding principles include work plans. However, underneath the materials management section of this policy, there is the dreaded phrase “coming soon.”
The material management section includes the aphorism: reduce, reuse and recycle, one of the most recognizable slogans of the sustainability industry. It is introduced to individuals at a young age because it is also one of the most important aspects to a healthy environment. So where is the highly anticipated strategy for how UO students can do their part in managing materials?
The most student-driven policy also contains the least amount of planning and information. Every other strategy has work plans linked below, so when it comes to the individual aspect of UO sustainability, responsibility is not being encouraged or taken.
In his book “The Social Construction of Nature,” Klaus Eder argues there is an increasing separation between nature as an object and as our environment. Eder explains how nature is determined by culture, and our cultural construction of it has become increasingly violent and destructive. We have lost our personal connection to nature and have objectified it so that it fits into our industrially driven world.
This can be used as a parallel to UO’s environmental policy. The aspect the university lacks is the individualistic and personalized approach of maintaining a healthier environment. Some sections, such as design and transportation, exhibit promising features to a more sustainable university. The finances we have in place for these projects are impressive and important for the future. But while it’s important for institutions to financially support sustainability initiatives, simply throwing money at the problem isn’t a sufficient solution.
Some institutions offload all of their own responsibilities by encouraging “personal choice” among consumers. Their ways of production are unaffected, and it is up to the individual whether or not the sustainable action is beneficial. While it may put these companies in a better light, the individualistic approach to sustainability is the opposite of UO’s tactics.
Pumping money into programs and policies only accelerates the dive into materialization. Communication to the student body and broader community about how to be responsible members of our natural world is the vital step UO must take.
Just like the looming Climate Clock, the uncertainties of the future are constantly ticking closer. Although climate change is a global issue, the younger generations mandate the effectiveness of the change we wish to see. Through unambiguous plans for our university’s environmental policies and mass communication of those implementations, I believe UO will find itself renowned in the global fight for sustainability.