Staying green until the revolution

The University's plan to make Princeton a sustainable campus is very exciting. It ties in beautifully not only with current concerns about global warming and the general trend toward sustainability, but also with the "Aspire" capital campaign and the new 10-year Campus Plan. But in all honesty, the plan must be lauded for its pioneering aspects and refusal to rely on schemes like emissions offsets which, while attractive, are of questionable efficacy. The University has rightly chosen to reduce emissions on campus by planning to alter transportation, plant more trees, include rooftop gardens on new buildings and improve irrigation systems. In the interim, however, the University must not lose sight of current energy problems that plague preexisting buildings. Some of these problems are addressed in the sustainability plan but only very briefly in statements like "expand energy conservation through retrofits in existing buildings across campus."

Take for instance the excessive heating in older buildings. In some of the old dormitories on campus, it is not possible to turn the heat off or even down during the winter, which forces students to open their windows. On any given winter day, students are wasting loads of energy expended to heat their rooms that is vented directly into the atmosphere.

Newer buildings, such as Bloomberg Hall and Whitman College, are blessed with thermostats, which in theory should eliminate the problem of wasteful overheating. Ideally older buildings would be retrofitted to also have thermostats that could be controlled by the rooms' inhabitants. Attention must be paid, however, to ensure that the thermostats are appropriately tuned. This was never the case in Bloomberg. For some reason, I personally find it very difficult to arrive at a comfortable temperature in Whitman, which of course leads to an unfortunate combination of discomfort and energy waste.

Another issue is inadequate lighting on campus. Lighting in dorm rooms is far from efficient. My freshman year, I lived in a suite in Bloomberg where it was impossible to turn off the lights in either the bathroom or the common corridor. I suppose there might have been a safety reason for having the lights on in the corridor at all times, but the purpose of having the lights on in the bathroom even when no one was using it eludes me to this day, especially when a simple switch would have solved the problem.

Another solution to countering the waste of electricity on unused lighting would be to install motion sensors. Careful thought must be put into any decision to use these devices, however, because some that are already in existence should probably be retooled. They may be well intentioned, but inept motion sensors can actually lead to more waste. For instance, some of the motion sensors in Dickinson Hall initially cause the lights to flicker on and off if the room's occupants are too still. Consequently, some professors have learned to leave the lights in their offices on, not allowing the motion-sensors to regulate whether the rooms are lit.

Then, there is the lighting provided in the rooms themselves. I was disappointed in both Bloomberg and Whitman with the inferior quality of the lighting. Dim lighting is by no means equivalent to energy conservation. The main problem I see with the lamps in Whitman, however, is that the wall-mounted sconces direct the majority of the lighting up, while I am looking down at my work. Additionally, what serves as the lamp shade - the sconce itself - is completely opaque, further reducing the amount of light I receive. Consequently, it is necessary for students to use additional lighting, which of course consumes additional electricity.  This would not be necessary if the lighting fixtures directed light more efficiently.

Water conservation should also be a top priority. Something should be done about the self-flushing toilets in several buildings on campus, including East Pyne, Chancellor Green and Wu Hall. The East Pyne bathrooms have the terrible habit of flushing only when one doesn't want them to flush. OK, I'm exaggerating - but only a little. The toilets in East Pyne often flush unbidden multiple times, which can be uncomfortable and startling if this occurs while the toilet is in use. Even worse, unnecessary flushing is wasteful. Low-flush toilets use 1.6 gallons of water per flush, but older toilets can use as many as seven gallons. Compounded over many stalls and many users, the wasted water builds up quickly over time - and is completely inexcusable.

As the University continues to expand, its efforts at making the campus greener are laudable. The University should not forget, however, to pay particular attention to pre-existing conditions that waste energy and water and that really prevent Princeton from being as eco-friendly as it could be.

 

Martha Vega-Gonzalez is a history major from New York, N.Y. She can be reached at mvega@princeton.edu.