Weighing in on the Weight of Neutrality

News of the new Vermont Gas pipeline and the College’s announced endorsement of the project has created quite the stir among the community – and rightfully so. For a quick summary of the debate, see the dialogue that has taken shape between Zach Drennen‘13.5 and Cailey Cron‘13.5 and Anna Shireman-Grabowski‘15.5 within the columns of this section over the past few weeks. Both sides bring valid points and sound arguments to the table, and this week, I’ll do my best to show why the discourse represents exactly what the decision-making processes concerning issues like carbon neutrality needs: emphatic, concerned, critical judgements.

To begin, I agree with Cron and Shireman-Grabowski. In no way do I think propagation of natural gas – much less fracked gas – puts us on a track toward sustainable development or energy independence. In a life before Middlebury, I went to school for a year in New York’s Southern Tier, right on top of the Marcellus Shale – fracking ground zero. If there’s anywhere that can provide a look at the way in which political vitriol permeates the present discourse on natural gas extraction – like, well, the way fracking chemicals permeate shale rock – it’s there. For every environmentalist adamantly against the development of natural gas resources, there’s a lower-middle-to-lower-class “Average Joe” who believes with every fragment of their being that gas wealth and all its benefits is their fast lane to the American Dream. That’s not to say that the average American’s opinion isn’t misinformed or painfully unaware of the other economically viable alternatives to fossil fuel development, because that may very well be the case. I do think, however, that Drennen tries to make the point that we can’t immediately vilify the average American because of concern for those things closest to them, but rather that we should approach problems like this with open ears and open minds. This is especially true if we have vested interests in the matter, as is the case with carbon neutrality.

With that said, Cron and Shireman-Grabowski are right in pointing out that there are far better ways to provide energy savings than building a pipeline. Simple home improvement projects can often result in significant reductions in operating costs and energy efficiency. However, I think we sometimes take for granted how well Vermonters know this, as well as how politically active and well-informed they are. Considering our own knowledge of the alternatives to a new pipeline, the College’s continued support of the pipeline would represent nothing short of a public disservice to the people of Vermont.

The issue becomes slightly more complicated, though, when we consider whether or not opposing a pipeline means opposing biomethane. From my own involvement with and knowledge of the College’s carbon neutrality progress, the biomethane project would not, on its own, make us carbon neutral. Would it provide a viable means of replacing the 1,000,000 gallons of fuel oil we still burn every year? Yes, but there’s more to our carbon footprint than that. While it would only be one piece of the solution, it would be a pretty important one. It’s a shame that there may not be another feasible way of utilizing a new, truly clean technology like biomethane. Unless some benefactor-to-the-rescue willing to fund the construction of a Middlebury-to-Salisbury pipeline (to be used exclusively for the transport of biomethane) or an on-campus storage facility comes on to the scene, I don’t know if I could rightfully support biomethane as a viable step towards carbon neutrality. If we’re going to do carbon neutrality, let’s make sure to do it right.

If anything, this whole debate illuminates a point I spoke on in a column concerning this same topic earlier this year. In order for carbon neutrality at Middlebury to work, we, the students, the community, need to take ownership of it and responsibility for it. And that’s what’s happening here. This discourse is the practical application of everything we’re supposed to be learning about in the classroom – critical thinking and all that jazz. However, I don’t know if value judgments – like deciding what it means to be carbon neutral – can be made through cost-benefit analysis. If carbon neutrality at Middlebury is supposed to set some kind of precedent, which I assume it is, then we better make sure that however we go about doing it projects the values and virtues we want it to. I’ll assume environmental degradation isn’t what we hope to accomplish through becoming carbon neutral. We become like our virtues through our actions, and our actions alone. There’s no room in there for asymmetry.