Cult of Sustainability

By Jasper Hicks, Staff Columnist

Published on Tuesday, December 1, 2009

  • Print
  • Report an Error

Over the past few months and years, sustainability has turned into a pseudo-religion on this campus. Everywhere I turn, I see students taping up posters on doors a la Martin Luther about how to live a more sustainable life. Just like weekly sermons at church, we receive weekly blitzes in our inboxes. Like bible study, we have weekly council meetings on climate change. Our church is the Sustainable Living Center. We even have a sustainability officer staff that can talk to students one-on-one. I feel as though I should be repenting for my use of a to-go container last night.

College President Jim Yong Kim, since becoming president, has done his part to further spread this pseudo-religion around campus. Acting as a missionary of sorts, he made it known in his inaugural address just how important a sustainable future is for Dartmouth: “If you’re an engineer,” Kim suggested, “take on climate change and move us toward a more sustainable future.”

But it’s not only the administration that has pushed for green action. The student body has done its part to convert this campus to be more sustainable, too. This is where the pseudo-religious have run into trouble, and have sent the wrong message about sustainability. If you are not sustainable, they insinuate, then you must be hurting the environment. Just take a look at Dartmouth’s decision to put up “green screens” showing polar bears dying when students use “too much” energy. If you are not conserving, these followers suggest, then you must be abusing and littering. Thou shalt not drink from water bottles, they say. Thou shalt not leave thy computer on. Thou shalt not use plastic.

While all dialogue on campus may not sound so alarmist and combative, more rational voices, it seems, are typically drowned out in the chorus. This, to our detriment, creates a biased, closed-minded campus. Because of this partiality, those who question environmentalism are not even given a chance to speak. Often times, they are scoffed at.

“You’re telling me that you don’t believe in global warming?” — one might hear a dogmatic environmentalist joke — “Please, don’t be so ignorant.”

One problem with such environmentalist fundamentalism is that these zealots adhere to research that they believe to be foolproof. They are dogmatic about science, which by nature is fallible. This past week, for instance, hackers uncovered thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that hinted at a plot among academics to cover up the truth about climate change. As The New York Times reported, “[I]n one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical ‘trick’ in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as ‘idiots.’” As one doctor wrote, “[T]he fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” While what the hackers did may be criminal, this discovery has unveiled what we knew all along: that all science is prone to errors. Dogmatic environmentalism may not be the word of God after all.

But regardless of what past science or new e-mails may tell us, an additional problem on this campus lies in the fact that followers of this pseudo-religion act in a way that is antithetical to what college learning should be about. Sustainability advocates believe no one can legitimately disagree with them. Like religious fanatics, they are unwilling to consider that what they believe may be false — that global warming may not be occurring, and that drastic sustainability measures may therefore not be necessary. They preach their doctrine and that is enough for them. Never do they consider that scientists may have gotten this one wrong. Never do they look at the issue from the other side.

In a way, those who do not subscribe to this pseudo-religion, and instead question environmentalism, are being excommunicated from the church. That is because there is no room for debating the scriptures of environmental think tanks and climate academics on this campus. There exists an apparent unanimity of belief: that global warming is occurring and that Dartmouth must do all it can to protect the environment. Personally, I wish these dogmatic environmentalists would keep more of an open mind on this issue. Science can be wrong, you know. And it often is.

Comments

Great column by Jasper Hicks. The "sustainablity" people are using the concept for control and personal benefit. Useful idiots are important for cosmetic reasons but are otherwise incidental in the power play of the left. Taking people's freedom has to be disguised in a fake, quasi popular movement or movements. The "sustainable" crowd are either lying or lemming like followers of the feel good. The word itself is a lie. Vague, flexible, it is whatever they tell you it is, but it always entails you doing what they tell you to do. Control is the goal and "sustainable" is the means.

By on Dec 1 | 1:44 pm

Jasper, your comments on the CRU’s emails seem to follow the same paradigm of conservative skepticism in the mainstream media. Climate change skeptics are known to find whatever “evidence” of the “hoax” they can in order strengthen their arguments. While you say climate change theorists / environmentalists are ideological, realize that climate change skeptics like yourself are just as extreme. While I’m for climate scientists using more transparency in their research, this event at the CRU does not reject the hundreds of other scientists, reports, etc., outlined by the IPCC in their 2007 study. Either way, I’d read up on the issue a little more before cherry picking from the NYT. As for the rest of your piece, it looks like you’re just another guy who’s freaking out about the change in the world’s perspective on energy and the environment. If you equate conservation to not “littering”, then I feel sorry for you. Either get with it, or get over it. Good luck applying to the Fox News! (You too, Frank).

By on Dec 2 | 4:59 pm

If you look at sustainability efforts (here and everywhere else, I freaking hate putting life “at Dartmouth” on a pedestal) and only see a religiously liberal crowd who believe whatever they read because it’s in their interests – then sure its going to look like a cult. But generalize the term ‘sustainability’ and you begin to understand that ‘sustainable energy’ and ‘sustainable development’ is not just about saving the planet from global climate change (which should be an open discourse, for sure) but about being more efficient and not depleting capital of any sort; financial, human, or environmental. You know who’s the most sustainable person I can think of? Osama Bin Laden. Despite all the odds, he SUSTAINS. Insulating your house and biking to work is ‘sustainable’ not because the NYTimes told us so and reading the NYTimes is hip, but because it’s more efficient and preserves resources. Just ask an MBA or an engineer. It makes SENSE.

By on Dec 4 | 3:40 pm

Comments are closed on this article.

Most Viewed | Latest Comments

  1. Lohse: Telling the Truth
  2. Pollard: Muckraking for a Buck
  3. Rolling Stone article targets College culture
  4. Obama nominates College President Jim Yong Kim to lead the World Bank
  5. Rolling Stone publishes article about hazing at Dartmouth
  6. Chang: Inequity in Our Backyard
  7. Tuck initiative broadens use of online resources
  8. UJAO drops all 27 SAE hazing charges
  9. Mahoney: How Not to Combat Hazing
  10. Romney allegedly eyeing Ayotte