The latest edition of the Primary Source included a misinformed article arguing against Environmental Consciousness Outreach's (ECO) upcoming online referendum today to get Tufts to purchase wind power. As a member of ECO, I would like to set the record straight.
Currently most of Tufts' energy is generated by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, processes that have destructive health, environmental and social impacts such as mercury contamination, foreign fuel sources, increased asthma rates, air pollution and climate change. Wind power generation has none of these drawbacks and is therefore key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and an environmentally healthy future.
ECO's referendum asks whether Tufts students would support the creation of a maximum $20 per student per year fee to go towards purchasing wind power, a figure that the Source incorrectly argues "will not make even a dent in financing renewable energy sources for Tufts." In reality, this proposed increase in tuition would go towards purchasing 20 to 60 percent of Tufts' energy from renewable wind power plants. Calling even the worst-case scenario of 20 percent "an insignificant amount of energy," as the Source put it is deliberately misleading and untrue.
The Source goes on to plead that the cost of adopting wind power is too great a burden to place on college students. While everyone's financial situation is different, $20 per year, or $10 per semester, is less than the cost of one dinner at Dewick ($11.38 according to Tufts Dining Services), which seems like a relatively small price to pay for such a worthwhile cause.
Furthermore, the $20 per student per year fee is actually greater than what the school needs to begin to purchase its power from wind sources. Since the necessary paperwork for the referendum was submitted, it has become clear that the tuition increase would more likely be $5 to $15 per year. The $20 figure is on the ballot only because ECO wanted to err on the side of caution, and the TCU bylaws state that the wording of a ballot referendum cannot be changed after the necessary petition signatures have been collected.
The most intricate argument made by the Source is that, although wind power certainly has many environmental benefits, it will be best to realize them as soon as the free market makes the technology more economically feasible. While this argument may seem to encompass the most attractive aspects of conservative thought, it is ridiculous in this context because it fails to mention the fact that the fossil fuel power industry does not compete in a free, open market.
In reality, the U.S. government provides billions of dollars of subsidies to power utilities that burn coal, oil and natural gas, an advantage that wind power companies do not enjoy.
Moreover, the Source's economic argument does not account for the latest developments in the fossil fuel market, which may indicate that now is actually the time to begin to invest in wind energy. In a recent Investment Research Report, the reputable financial firm Goldman Sachs, the world's biggest trader of energy derivatives, reclassified the current oil market as being in a similar situation to the "super-spike" energy market of the 1970's. The potential rise in the price of traditional energy sources, which will only be exacerbated in the future by the development of China's industrial infrastructure, means that Tufts University may soon be forced to pay significantly higher energy bills.
At this time, wind power companies need investment capital to grow, and are currently offering long-term energy contracts to large buyers, such as Tufts University, at fixed rates competitive with today's energy market. By contractually agreeing to purchase some of its power from wind companies now, Tufts would not only become partially sheltered from the oil market's price inflations, but could potentially save a substantial amount of money in the future by paying today's rates for tomorrow's prices.
In the previous argument lies an important detail that many opponents of adopting wind power now tend to gloss over. The Source's recent article mentioned that the wind industry will soon mature into a more technologically advanced, economically feasible alternative to fossil fuel-based energy. What they failed to mention, however, is exactly how this transition will happen. The only way the wind industry will ever reach its potential as an economically viable power source is if it is able to find large buyers in the early stages of its development.
Without the crutch of big government subsidies to provide this initial capital, only large, socially-responsible organizations like universities can make high-volume wind power production a reality. Already many other educational institutions such as Harvard, Smith, Cornell, the University of California system and fellow NESCAC school Connecticut College have stepped up and committed funds to purchasing wind power. It is time Tufts, a school with a renowned environmental reputation, joined their ranks.
Even if you choose to ignore the many significant, uncontested health and environmental benefits of wind power production, the simple fact that the sooner America is able to generate more of its energy from wind turbines, the sooner its dependence on foreign oil markets will decrease, should be enough to make the venture worthwhile. Today's vote to approve a small increase in our tuitions should be seen not as an attempt to further burden ourselves financially, but rather as an opportunity to lead our nation to a better future. I, for one, know how I will cast my ballot.
Alex Bedig is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
