In response to Matthew Hurt’s article “Beyond Coal lacks suitable plan for Tech” (CT, Oct. 13), I am addressing the errors or misrepresentations of the student campaign. I have many issues with how his narrow argument was presented.
The first set of problems Hurt identifies with the campaign begins with his assertion “Beyond Coal is far from being a movement with a well thought out mission.” Hurt, however, does not mention some of the fundamentals of the group.
Beyond Coal’s mission is to get campuses nationwide to move off of their coal-fired power plants by 2020. It is a 10-year plan, which is not a short amount of time, especially given the increasing developments in renewable energy. This plan is also timed closely with the beginning of the Climate Action Commitment and Sustainability plan, which binds the university to move off of the cogeneration plant between 2025 and 2050.
Second, he claims a “the lack of current interest from the university to invest in alternative energies.” Interest to invest in alternative energies comes from more than just the university administration. Substantial student and community support for alternative energies would help create the shift in campus priorities. A large-scale change in mentality on our campus and in Blacksburg is the best way to promote clean energy investments.
Third, Hurt asks, “Why make this change given the current state of our economy?” Should our campus become energy independent, the university would have economic stability in the future. Also, investing in clean energy is a choice that has more benefits than the outright cost. Protecting the environment, the Appalachian communities around Tech, increasing the university’s prestige and improving the health of students are benefits that can’t be factored into a price tag.
While Hurt is correct “there is no avoiding the fact that switching to alternative energy will have a massive financial cost to the university,” he is not taking into account the massive costs coal will also have. In the Tech sustainability plan, the university’s coal prices have tripled from 2004 to 2008.
A version of this article appeared in the Oct 26 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 44 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
It's a good thing you're not a business major. While the cost of coal has increased it is still far cheaper than switching to renewable energy. There is no link between the use of renewable energy and economic stability. Your economic argument is severely flawed. Frankly, because you allude to costs that you don't substantiate and benefits that are unnamed and impossible to calculate, your letter is more emotional than it is a logical argument. The only coherent point in your article is your response to the support of you ideals. Simply because a group of people think an idea is good doesn't make it a good idea. Prohibition, slavery, genocide weren't good ideas even though a majority of people supported them. One would expect a better written article from a person majoring in communications. There's a reason coal advocates continue to win even though we aren't organized. Your group keeps making the same ill thought out claims that come from a place of emotion. You can't out debate coal on purely logical terms and that's why you never make headway.
Reply to this Top
Chris,
There was a time when everyone didn't support slavery but it was still around simply because it made economic sense to people (aka get stuff done for free). When does an idea become not just about profit, but also how it affects the people connected to it? After reading your post I can only hope to never be involved with someone like you in the business world as you only seem to be concerned with personal gain.
Reply to this Top
Slavery has always been about economics. When it was first started it was widely supported. The Slavery system ended in the U.S. as a means of crippling the Southern economy which was dependent upon it. The institution of slavery was being phased out before the war because of the greater profits in sharecropping. It was more profitable to simply take a cut of the workers profits than to take all with the added costs of caring for them. Slavery was never about the people involved.
Top
So because I support the free market that means I support slavery? That's the craziest bleeping jump in conclusion I've ever seen, wow...
Also, based on your last sentence I can assume you don't buy anything ever correct? I mean I'm pretty sure even farmer joe sells at the farmers market to make profit.
Top
I want to add that the anon here is me not Chris. Like it or not our rational line of thought is rather popular. Your arguing to multiple people here not everyone that objects to you is Chris.
Top
Chris,
There was a time when everyone didn't support slavery but it was still around simply because it made economic sense to people (aka get stuff done for free). When does an idea become not just about profit, but also how it affects the people connected to it? After reading your post I can only hope to never be involved with someone like you in the business world as you only seem to be concerned with personal gain.
Reply to this Top
Chris,
There was a time when everyone didn't support slavery but it was still around simply because it made economic sense to people (aka get stuff done for free). When does an idea become not just about profit, but also how it affects the people connected to it? After reading your post I can only hope to never be involved with someone like you in the business world as you only seem to be concerned with personal gain.
Reply to this Top
I would just like to address the economic argument against coal use.
The argument from Anonymous: "While the cost of coal has increased it is still far cheaper than switching to renewable energy. There is no link between the use of renewable energy and economic stability."
In reading this statement, one is lead to assume that the costs of renewable energy alternatives and the cost of coal have been compared on equal timelines. In truth, the trends for prices for these two energy sources differ depending on the context you use chronologically. The cost of coal and transport is cheap now because it is comes easily with blasting in local Appalachian communities. I am sure, Anonymous, if your family was likely to represent part of a cancer cluster from living in one of the communities, you would not be so optimistic about where we obtain our coal. Graphs from the EPA depict coal costs rising in the last 20 years, and they will continue to rise as expected (See: US Department of Energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Coal). Renewable energy alternatives are increasingly subsidized by the government, become more technologically efficient with time and trial, and become more common with every year (A great example: http://www.vcerc.org/VCERC_Final_Report_Offshore_Wind_Studies_Full_Report_new.pdf). The trend for renewable energy alternatives continues to become cheaper.
Reply to this Top
Bravo Sam Day this is the first decent argument I've gotten from Beyond Coal. Now to counter your point you mentioned government subsidies are needed to make renewable energy competitive. Coal doesn't need gov't subsidy to be cheaper than any other form of energy. This means that our tax dollars, which should be used for other purposes, aren't being wasted to prop up an industry. Now as far as your statements about renewables becoming cheaper, this is true. Rather than waste money building, maintaining and running an expensive renewable energy source now. Wouldn't it be better to simply wait until renewables can compete with coal without subsidy. Coal advocates aren't saying that we should never switch to renewables, simply that we should wait and allow the free market to determine when we switch.
Top
Hi Anonymous,
A response for your comment at 10:43 (I couldn't figure out how to reply to it.) I am sorry, before I assumed you knew that the government subsidies the fossil fuel production of the US. More so, than the renewable energy market actually (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0921-hance_subsidies.html). These subsidies are needed for transportation costs etc to keep fossil fuels cheap, as this is easier than changing existing energy systems. So rather than change for the long term, the government susbsidizes for now, until fossil fuels are too expensive in EVERY way, then real changes would be made.
Top
Also to Anonymous,
A follow-up note. Now that we're clear that the government subsidizes fossil fuels AND renewable energy technology, in larger portion to the prior and not the latter, let's consider the timeline Beyond Coal has proposed. VTBC is using 2020 as a context for the transition we're advocating. Not a deadline. But we have to put a number on something. The Climate Action Plan (created by Tech, accepted by Admin, incorporated into University Policy), states a transition will be present between 2025 and 2050 (http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/06/2009-469.html). So, if the University follows it's own policy, this change WILL come. We're just asking for it to take place before we're old people. I hope you can understand, Anonymous, that we have the best of intentions. Emotionally, yes, we are involved with the campaign, but we aware of when to separate ourselves from the facts.
Top
Now if you look at the subsidies you will see the coal is subsidized on the same level as renewable energy, the bulk of the fossil fuel subsidies (roughly 2/3) actually go to oil production. In fact about half of the total coal subsidies actually are medical costs for affected families which don't factor into the cost of coal itself. Coal is still cheaper even though it is subsidized less but a lot of the coal advocates here would agree in getting rid of all subsidies. Coal is still the better choice for Tech and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Renewable technology simply isn't ready yet and the free market backs this up. Tech will change when the time is right but we don't know when that is and 2020 is just a date you invented it means nothing. Instead of pushing us into a more expensive and less reliable energy supply we need to hold up wait and encourage innovation.
Top
Briefly, though this is a biased tangent, I would be interested to hear from you on the "majority of people" that supported genocide, prohibition, and slavery. All of these acts of anti-humanitarianism were supported mostly, if not exclusively, by the authority figures of their respected times and locations, and in some cases the wealthy that support those authorities. I think we can all agree that the portion of the population that constitutes the authority figures of society, and the wealthy members of it, are always the smallest portions of a society, and most certainly not the majority.
Believe me, we can take the original argument of coal use to other levels, but in doing so, expect for there to me more room for flaws in your argument in covering an even larger area. Unless, that is, you believe that you are advanced enough to debate on prohibition, genocide, slavery, and fossil fuels at the same time. I will confess whole-heartedly that I am not able, and do not wish to be.
Reply to this Top
The point with slavery, genocide and prohibition was that an idea isn't good simply because people support it. The author defended the validity of Beyond Coal's ideals by saying how much support it received. I took that logic to it's extreme with the above examples to disprove this line of thought.
Top
I just envisioned an American economy run by emotion with, "true"costs factored in, rather then our current free market: it was a scary vision...
Reply to this Top
"Finally, Hurt states the free market should dictate the switch to renewable energy. This is a linear way of thinking. Tech should dictate that switch. This university should be able to act on what is in the best interest of the school, students, community and world."
While this statement would seem legitimate given your clever way of writing it, you forget one important point. The university or any organization for that matter ultimately requires some amount of finance to attain its goals. The "free market" is how you are going to gain that finance and the free market is going to tend towards what people think is the most sound decision at the time. Funny how proposed alternatives are funded by subsidies (i.e. not the free market)
Reply to this Top
I think we all know that a University is certainly not run like a free market, my friend. Do you vote for where you petition money is used? Do you get to withdraw individual sections of it because you are "free" to in the "market"? The Administration controls money flow, and that is the truth. I would love to be proved wrong though!
Reply to this Top
I think we all know that a University is certainly not run like a free market, my friend. Do you vote for where you tuition money is used? Do you get to withdraw individual sections of it because you are "free" to in the "market"? The Administration controls money flow, and that is the truth. I would love to be proved wrong though!
Reply to this Top
I think we all know that a University is certainly not run like a free market, my friend. Do you vote for where you tuition money is used? Do you get to withdraw individual sections of it because you are "free" to in the "market"? The Administration controls money flow, and that is the truth. I would love to be proved wrong though!
Reply to this Top
Your right the University is run in part by the state government and it runs like any other government administration. That being said the free market is the best method of determining the distribution of goods and services and we should encourage the Tech administration to be more like it. That way tuition funds and other sources of income aren't wasted and used to greatest benefit of the student body.
Top
I agree. But I am also a strong believer that the allocation of tuition money to things like updating energy infrastructure, updating the efficiency of dorm-buildings, lowering the costs of waste generation for the University....these are things that I wouldn't mind funding, rather than basketball practice facilities, whatever construction they're doing over by D2 (we don't even know) etc. But, I understand that people will have different opinions with money, always. I suppose, in this area, Beyond Coal wants to propose the idea of using existing university funds towards updating energy efficiency and sources....as it will benefit our image as a Technology school, and lower energy costs in the long run. We certainly have the opportunity right now, schools of equal size and funding (UNC Chapel Hill, Cornell, Penn State etc.) have already signed to shut down their coal plant in the next 5 years, if they haven't already done so. We can most certainly do the same, and the world will not explode.
Top
The world wont explode but we'll pay a heck of a power bill. The costs of changing the plant are very high and the power we get will be more expensive. As far your comments about the other schools, once again an idea's popularity can not be the sole justification for it's validity. If renewable energy produced a cheaper KWH you might have argument but it doesn't. Renewable power plants are not a good idea for Tech as the technology exists today. One day in the future maybe but until then we are better off sticking to the current system. Spending more on energy means there are less funds for all the other services we enjoy. If we go ahead prematurely all of us in the Student Body are going to pay the bills for Beyond Coal's impatience.
Top
"Those students cannot dedicate their time and energy to finding that solution. The engineering science and mechanical department would be much better equipped."
Two questions I have in regard to this argument. Define for me the idea you have behind arguing that the ESM department would be much better equipped than say departments that more directly confront the problem.
Also, if you are not able to dedicate your time towards a worthwhile solution what ground does your organization have to stand on? Just some food for thought to an otherwise illogical argument.
Reply to this Top
Anonymous,
You clearly stand against any of Beyond Coal's fundamental goals and hard work. You bring the same arguments against "emotional" writing to the commentary section ranting about our tactics and plans. Before you write another comment with poor grammar and selfish concerns, take a minute to evaluate the fact that we are not a group of students intent on shutting down the coal industry in a couple of years. This is not an "us versus them" issue. Dozens of schools, including Cornell, UNC, Penn State, Univ of Wisconsin, are beginning the transition from coal to 100% renewable energy by 2020 or earlier. These 'Beyond Coal' campuses aren't fueled by emotions or rants, but students in business, communications, engineering, economics, environmental science, policy, and other majors.
If you have real concerns about our campaign, I suggest you email me at karad3@vt.edu. Ranting isn't going to slow down our campaign so I suggest you act more responsibly with your comments.
Reply to this Top
You're right his ranting isn't slowing down your campaign because that would imply that you were making progress to begin with. You're being emotional and name calling isn't going to make your side look any better. As for your argument about the support this movement receives I would refer you to a previous commenter that said "Simply because a group of people think an idea is good doesn't make it a good idea. Prohibition, slavery, genocide weren't good ideas even though a majority of people supported them." If you want to hash this out we'd love to talk with you but I'm only seeing illogical emotional arguments from your side. There can't be a constructive dialogue if you aren't going to be logical.
Top
Anonymous, who is we? I and I'm sure other Beyond Coal members would love to talk to this group you are speaking for. During this discussion I would be very open to telling you about the progresses we've made, and even the struggles we've had. Constructive dialogue, however, is challenging when you post anonymously representing an anonymous group. Also, I think comparing a campaign for renewable energy to things like slavery and genocide is "illogical" and "emotional"
Top
We are the rational coal supporting tech students that believe in free market principles. If you read my argument rather than skim it you would know that I didn't liken Beyond Coal to genocide, slavery and prohibition. I disproved the argument that your ideas are good because they are popular. Using those above examples I took your argument to it's logical extreme as a means of disproving it. I encourage you to take a philosophy course if you are confused.
Top
I'm sorry, but if, for example, the ESM department was supporting your cause they would help you. If Beyond Coal wants that, then recruit ESM people to your cause (If you have none), but do not expect a group to help you just because it is your opinion that it is the right thing to do.
BTW you lost a TON of credibility in my book for both yourself and your organization when you stooped to personal attacks.
Top
I still don't understand how Beyond Coal has a plan, as the title implies. It seems that what the author is saying is that the plan is to make others make a plan (?). I thought that some excellent constructive dialogue occurred during a debate last Spring (Beyond Coal vs. some Mining Engn. students), but I have yet to hear ANY solid quantitative arguments from Beyond Coal. What is the "actual cost" of coal? BC throws this term around all the time without quantifying it. Why don't they quantify it? Because no credible sources have. Why haven't they done this? Because there's no data for it. Why is there no data for it? Because it's a purely qualitative claim.
I believe that, as an organization, it's a very poor stance to take when you deliberately shirk off responsibility for the issue you're debating by saying that others would be more qualified to do it for you. Why don't these more qualified people support you? If they do, why don't they argue alongside you?
Emotional arguments, like this one and every other one I've seen from BC, are only going to earn converts from the predisposed and the naive. The decision-makers and engineers who would be responsible for actually executing BC's "plan" know better, and that is why BC continues talking in circles and meeting so much opposition from rationally minded students.
Reply to this Top
Hello Again,
I would like to point out that Beyond Coal has never claimed to be able to quantify precise numbers and exact data on the cost of coal, and the numbers behind fuel usage efficiency. The "cost of coal" refers largely to the opportunity cost of using coal, AND to the definable numbers associated with paying for it. The opportunity cost includes what we're giving up: moving towards a more stable energy future, bolstering our image as a Tech school, the homes and health of poor Appalachian communities....the definitive cost includes gov't money to subsidize coal, transportation costs, mine remediation costs, costs associated with off-setting carbon footprints (for those who participate in this).....Do you need a number to understand that coal is indeed EXPENSIVE in many senses of the term? While direction towards harvesting solar energy and wind power....so much more simple. And clean. And politically uncontroversial. From what I understand from your arguments, if the money was right, renewables would be good and fine? If this is the case, I would love to take the time to show you that in the next 10-15 years, you will be satisfied.
Reply to this Top
Sam Day,
"If this is the case, I would love to take the time to show you that in the next 10-15 years, you will be satisfied."
You don't understand the simple nature of all human life do you? It has been one way since the beginning of time - What can you do for me NOW?
No one cares about 10-15 years down the road, it is always what can you do for me now? Currently, renewable's are too expensive and not stable enough to fulfill the now aspect. This, while a sad fact, is a true and undeniable fact. Just because a SMALL group of people are shooting for change, no matter how good or bad the cause, it will not change within Beyond Coals 10 year time frame. If in 10 years you proposed to be off of coal within 10 years (2030), MAYBE that would have appeal IF and only if renewable's are developed and economical.
By no means am I saying your cause is not just, but you are trying to change human behavior and it just will not happen.
Top
Actually coal is a very stable energy future for us, we have over a 1000 years of coal reserves there is nothing in our energy future that is unstable about a plentiful, easy to process, reliable energy source. As for your last point that's not all that different from what we've been arguing. If in 10-15 years a form of renewable energy becomes cheaper than by all means we should switch. Our argument though is we should wait until it is cheaper and that moving to it now is too soon.
Top
Further, I would like to take responsibility for our statements as a student organization. Believe me, I don't wish to be shirking off.
Please understand, Anonymous, that we did not begin our work in order to debate with people. We expected it, but do not seek it. I am beginning to think that this is something you do seek, and I'm glad, I do love a thorough argument....given the research on both sides is equal and grounded.
In our meetings with the Administration (who I assume you were referring to as "more qualified people"), they deliberately stated they'd like to see more student involvement to show support (a mission of ours to demonstrate), and basically just a frustrated no. So, in return, we are in the midst of research, petitioning drives, coalition building etc....to show support, and to show that it is possible. Cheaper than they think. Other schools have done it. We can too.
Now, this is OUR responsibilty. As students we are passionate, and don't mind laying it out for the "More Qualified People"...if it's easy for them, we are more likely to succeed. But do not think you are justified in saying we "shirk off" responsibility. We have made this our cause, and it is SOLELY our responsibility, as it is of those who support us. We are not flakes. We are educated and driven, and determined to be respectful to those who try to appear as if they know us, without understanding us.
Reply to this Top
Finally, I would like to comment on the emotions present in the comments on this page. As with every controversial issue debated, emotional response is tempting. I agree, Beyond Coal members take an emotional stance in their writing. As do you, Anonymous.
Would you not say that commenting on genocide and slavery was intended for an emotional appeal?
You may not be emotional, but your words are intended to be rude. If you don't want to see people get upset, then change statements like: "Also, if you are not able to dedicate your time towards a worthwhile solution what ground does your organization have to stand on?"
You know full well that you are provoking people, and expect an emotional response to that. So please, don't pretend that you are the neutral philosopher that you uphold your self-supported reputation under. You have not kept the diction in your comments polite, which is fine, we are all grown-ups here, but don't act surprised when people actually feel something from it. In other words, stop finding things to complain about, and you suddenly have fewer complaints.
Reply to this Top
How many times do i need to explain this to you people. The comment about genocide was a simple exercise in disproving an argument by taking it to it's extreme. There was no intended emotional appeal to it. It's basic philosophy, has no one in Beyond Coal ever taken a philosophy class. I would hate to think that you can all be so obtuse to a very basic concept.
Top
Also sam it's worth noting that there are multiple anons on this page you can't link all of our arguments together like we're some sort of hive mind. It's best to just argue on individual points with specific anons.
Top
Yes. It's hard to tell the "Anons" apart. The comments on this page are dizzing, it's hard for me to keep up with what is said in this sort of web-layout. I invite whichever Anonymous I have been addressing to email me...we could talk further and perhaps follow each other's argument better that way. My email is sam08@vt.edu. I am an intern with Beyond Coal, and would love to hear more. With that, I sign off. I have enjoyed this healthy debate, friends!
Top
Good article and dialogue. We can foresee the need for a solution beforehand because we all know resources are limited. I don’t know where the ‘1,000 years of coal remains’ figure came from but I would like to see a source. Ideas like Peak oil, coal, and even soil, in relation to top soil, are real concerns. Humans aren't used to the idea running out might happen on their watch, physically or feasibly. Our misconceptions and preconceived notions are being torn apart in front of us. Perhaps put up in smoke or drown by melting icecaps is more appropriate. Our schema is going to be reconstructed. It already has been for many, though there are many more who haven't jumped on board this newest and biggest paradigm shift that is slowly taking form. Peer-reviewed science has ended the debate. The answers are simple, inertia of thought and lag time are not.
We act like waiting on our omnipotent market to say it’s okay to switch over is wise, but that idea is startlingly passive.
This whole issue seems visceral to me, it isn’t about winning and losing, us versus them, it’s about everybody and how our future unfolds amidst the 6th great mass extinction while human population and pollution grow at unruly rates. Coal causes many problems for long term stability, safety, and sanity. On personal and economical fronts. New Paradigms require conflict, reluctance, and stubborn power structures, and Lord knows we are chock full of that.
Reply to this Top
http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5002_47_33.html and you might be interested to know that one mine in Zimbabwe has significant reserves as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwange Now if you're going to act like you know better than the free market you can try but the history books are full of people that tried to outperform the market and they failed miserably. We've been shown time and time again that even with any flaws that it might have free market economics are the best we can do. Free markets have given you the life you enjoy now and the luxury and power that we have as a nation.
Reply to this Top
I surely don't know better than the free market. Free markets have given us much it is very true. They've given me a life of privilege. They also gave the farming community I grew up in and the textile town next door in the Piedmont of our Commonwealth a smile and a wave goodbye thanks to outsourcing and economies of scale. The markets that built this nation are slowly tearing it down yet we still stand on whimsical and hopeful bifurcation points. We shall see where that insatiable grasp for homeostasis takes us if things level out, but we still got one awful long row to hoe. My elders used to tell me "We got it good here son, and don’t you take it for granted." I'm trying to not take it for granted. I'm trying to perpetuate that American dream a little further and see us lead the way in something mighty powerful. The global economy will surely undergo a new found pivot point with the race towards more efficient forms of renewable energy. We are currently losing, though China seems to be taking the issue of technology and energy very seriously, and I would hope so with the way their population is budding. We have a chance here to do something special.
Liberty in a wasteland is meaningless.
Top
I trust there's a point somewhere in your post. It seems to be your ramblings about your problems with America's post-industrialization in the globalized economy, coupled with anecdotal stories about your upbringing with a bit China to finish. I'd love to debate with you but figuring out your argument is exhausting.
Top
My 'ramblings' are just thoughts. The problem here is one of ecology and the degree of interconnectedness of natural systems. That coupled with what can be thought of when timescales collide, combustion, thrusting new inputs into the active carbon cycle and disrupting something that has found a balance through millions of years. Yes we require it now but that something is a closed system, and that is dangerous.
Now, enough rambling, my previous post of ramblings have a binding line in this subject, and believe me it's exhausting in itself. Let's be civil.
Beyond coal conjures up ideas of renewable energy, a technology that will play a tremendous role in the global economy over the upcoming decades. Research and manufacture of said technologies have potential to give Americans jobs. Consumers have power in the market and all this talk of waiting on the market sounds passive, people do have some control. I know the market is what we have, but things like not including the function and value of future natural equity liquefied is quite misleading for consumers, prices, and decisions. And worth discussing. If biology has taught us anything it is everything is more inextricably linked than we can fathom.
We're talking about Inventing the Future and Tech can and is having an important part in that.
Top
Fair Important,program belief in contact familiar whatever green typical girl undertake length fact base vast man radio government according local message experience question length exhibition along competition language proposal notion ourselves disappear value bill indicate change indicate lay citizen rock spirit question exchange like religion outside concept play legislation artist foreign time possibility type finding ear issue complete capable row rich content democratic already obvious persuade event response transfer score fear impossible world move early where production united yesterday panel as may significant external turn when box anybody
Reply to this Top
If you have a JPEG image and want to know if it's PSed. Go to <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Detector</a>, put in the URL to the image, and hit submit. The system will analyze the image for you. If the image has been edited, detailed info will be shown.
Reply to this Top