Skip to Content

UNC can and must do more to wean itself from coal

1 comments
October 13, 2009
Letter to the Editor

TO THE EDITOR:

At UNC, we don’t need to debate the existence of global warming. We get it. If temperatures rise just four degrees Fahrenheit, scientists predict that the climate of North Carolina will resemble that of Florida.

Studies show that North Carolina would be among the states most severely impacted by sea level rise due to loss of agricultural lowlands and tourism.

We also understand that coal mining destroys the land and communities in West Virginia, where all of our University’s coal is extracted, and burning coal pollutes our air and water with toxic materials like mercury and arsenic.

As Tar Heels, we don’t prolong our problems, we solve them. But in 2008, 63 percent of UNC’s global warming pollution came from burning coal on campus.

While the environmental initiatives of UNC to reduce our carbon footprint are certainly commendable, part of the University’s climate plan is to replace 20 percent coal with biomass by 2025.

At this rate, our children will be calling for an end to coal when they come to Carolina. We cannot afford to wait that long. Continuing our legacy of leadership requires us to work toward attaining the best possible solutions right now.

UNC can do this. Two models of rapid implementation of green initiatives are University of Wisconsin-Madison and Duke University.

Wisconsin has plans to replace coal with a mix of biomass and natural gas by 2012. Duke University is expected to reduce coal consumption 70 percent this year by replacing coal with biofuels and natural gas. If Duke and Wisconsin can make it happen, UNC can too.

I have total faith that UNC will decide to move beyond coal as quickly as possible. The sustainability practices we extol are not scraping away at the Appalachian Mountains and generating 320,000 tons of global warming pollutants — the cogeneration plant’s annual emissions.

Meghan Corbet
Faculty Outreach Coordinator
The Sierra Club Coal Free Campaign at Chapel Hill

Editor’s note: The 250-word length rule was waived for this letter.

 

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Never so simple.

Submitted by colinr on October 13, 2009 - 11:29.

I appreciate the work you're doing, Meghan, and I think that you are on the just side of this argument. That said, I would appreciate if your letter acknowledged the unpleasant realities of the issue.
As Chancellor Thorp was quoted in an earlier DTH article, "The coal-fired boilers that give us the advantage of cogenerating power must use solid fuel, so we cannot make significant change (such as a switch to all natural gas) overnight, ... But we are well on our way to moving beyond coal." I agree with your point completely! We are all impatient to see pollution lowered, but it is important to recognize the logistical problems associated with the issue. I am very interested in the plans at UW-M and Duke, and admit that I do not know enough about those issues to rule out a similar effort here. The Wisconsin effort seems to be a product of a state-level push for renewable energy, and I do not know if such an issue is anywhere near Gov. Purdue's attention.
Again, we're on the same page when it comes to goals. As you say in your opening paragraph, we get it. Your third paragraph, however, does not show a very clear understanding of the coal industry's effect on rural Appalachia. Modern coal mining destroys the land, absolutely. Mountaintop removal, which President Obama has voiced his disapproval of while simultaneously allowing additional sites to open, is destroying portions of the Appalachian Mountains. For the communities, however, mining remains one of the few jobs in the region. What I object to in your article is the assertion that mining is destroying these communities, because in reality mining is the only thing bringing money in. Currently, the Appalachian mountains are the unacknowledged Third World of America. I say that without judgment or disdain, it is a simple fact. Taking away the coal industry, however, will only make things worse.

I could go on for days about the culture of poverty, colonialist expansion, the exacerbating effects of geography and coal as an industrial product, but suffice it to say that while I agree with you and completely support your efforts to make UNC a more sustainable place, ignoring the complexities and subtleties of the situation hinder your cause more than help it.