What’s in a signature?
Welcome to the King’s Green Pad!
I’d like to launch discussion on this blog by sharing a dilemma I’m currently experiencing.
At the October, 2008, meeting of the Association of Universities and College of Canada (AUCC) the presidents of six universities in British Columbia circulated a “Climate Change Statement of Action” which they had all signed. They urged university presidents from across Canada to sign their statement, or to adapt it for their own circumstances. Since then, the president of the University of Calgary has circulated a letter inviting his counterparts at Alberta post-secondary institutions to sign the Statement.
The Statement of Action commits the signatories to:
1.   initiate the development of a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases by creating a planning body representative of all institutional stakeholders to set emission reduction targets.
2.   to develop, within 1 year, a comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions on campus.
3.   to develop, within 2 years, a climate action plan that engages every sector of the campus.
4.   while the plan is being created, implement selected actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
5.   make actions plans, inventories and progress reports available publicly for review and comment.
6.   work with governments, civil society, the business community and educational institutions to contribute to public awareness and climate change actions.
At the AUCC meeting one of my president colleagues (who shall remain nameless!) took his copy of the Statement, signed it, and handed it back to the BC spokesperson. I was a taken aback; maybe this president has far more executive power than I do, or maybe he regarded this as a “motherhood” statement which his campus would have no problem fulfilling. It seemed to me that the Statement was substantive enough that a president shouldn’t just sign it to show solidarity with the initiators. I’d want to make sure that my colleagues and my institution stood behind my signature. So I didn’t sign on the spot, but brought the document to the President’s Council at King’s for consideration. My Council colleagues shared my ambivalence: on the one hand, we felt we should sign the Statement to show our commitment to the well-being of creation; on the other hand we weren’t sure that King’s has the resources to meet all the Statement’s requirements.
So let me put the question to the Green Pad: what’s in a signature on Climate Change Statement of Action? How meaningful are these kinds of Statements anyway? Do you think I can sign this one with integrity? Can King’s muster the institutional resources, and the will, to carry through on the commitments outlined in the Statement?
I look forward to your insights and advice!
For more information or commentary check out:
- “Restless Delight” – the inaugural address of President Fernhout in 2005
- American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment
This post was written by Dr. Harry Fernhout, President of the King’s University College.
Posted: January 1st, 2009 under King's Administration, President Fernhout.
Tags: Global Climate Change, university president
Comments
Pingback from Response to “What’s in a Signature” | The King’s Green Pad
Time January 6, 2009 at 4:20 am
[...] January 1st President Fernhout asked the question, “What’s in a signature on Climate Change Statement of Action?” Maybe it’s because I’m a take-charge, “get ‘er done” American, but my [...]
Pingback from A faithful response to the Climate Change Action Statement is possible | The King’s Green Pad
Time January 7, 2009 at 7:17 am
[...] appreciate the sincerity with which Dr. Fernhout considered the significance of signing on to the Climate Change Petition. My initial reaction is that this petition reflects much of what we at King’s already do, in so [...]
Pingback from RE: January 1st, 2009 President Fernhout’s entry | The King’s Green Pad
Time January 8, 2009 at 3:10 am
[...] President Harry Fernhout of the King’s University College quite properly delayed his decision on signing the Climate Change Statement of Action at the recent Association of Universities and College…. He wanted to consult all levels of the University College before committing us to use the [...]
Pingback from | The King’s Green Pad
Time January 14, 2009 at 1:37 pm
[...] of Facilities at The King’s University College in Edmonton, AB in reference to posts by President Harry Fernhout and Sherry [...]
Pingback from Please, no more statements on climate change! | The King’s Green Pad
Time January 19, 2009 at 9:02 am
[...] both the University and College President’s Climate Change Statement of Action for Canada and President Fernhout’s opening blog on Greenpad show up as hits on the very first page of search results. Way to go [...]
Pingback from What’s in a Signature? Ink… Obviously | The King’s Green Pad
Time January 28, 2009 at 7:54 am
[...] Mike Ferber’s thoughts on the statement, I too was thinking “a statement on climate change, of course we should sign it. What was the [...]
Comment from fabeskins62
Time February 3, 2009 at 1:52 pm
is nobody at kings questioning the whole climate change/global warming fraud?
Pingback from King’s Wins CCCU Creation Care Grant | The King’s Green Pad
Time March 27, 2009 at 10:07 am
[...] on this blog. In fact, the King’s Green Pad was launched in January with a post by President Harry Fernhout querying whether the university should sign a climate change agreement. Since that time many others [...]
Write a comment
You need to login to post comments!
Comment from heatherlooy
Time January 3, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I really appreciate this thoughtful response to the Climate Change Statement of Action. It’s easy to sign petitions or statements like this and a lot harder to actually do something concrete (I know; I’ve signed lots and then wondered how much difference something so easy really makes).
There have been numerous national and international agreements and accords dealing with everything from human rights, nuclear arms, mines, to climate change. They get surrounded by lots of politicking but in the end, how much actually gets changed? I confess, though, that I was annoyed with Canada when we refused to sign the Kyoto accord and perceive the goal for a “Made in Canada” solution as a way of weaseling out of serious commitments to change. I think now that that was too cynical an attitude. What I hear in your reflections on this new climate change document is a desire to be a person of your word–if you sign something on behalf of King’s, you want to be able to deliver on the promises. And rather than “lead from in front”, signing it and simply informing the rest of the King’s community that we have to achieve these particular goals, you are “leading from behind”, encouraging us to think about what we SHOULD do, what we CAN do, and on what kind of timeline. If we are ever going to successfully change anywhere on this planet, it will require exactly the attitude that we are ALL involved, and we must work together. Such deep change cannot be imposed from above.
There’s a real tension, though, between being committed to realistic ways of making change, and the “optics” of the situation. We live in an age where the grand gesture and perception often means more than the substance. Whether or not one is ACTUALLY doing something worthwhile, it seems to matter than one is PERCEIVED as doing so.
As a King’s community, can we do both? Can we think radically and wisely about our ecological footprint AND our (hopefully prophetic) image in the broader academic and public communities? While it’s true that as Christians we are not necessarily called to do good in obvious, public ways, as a Christian academic institution, part of our mandate is to act as a light on a hill, and sometimes that requires us to publicly model a different way, not hide it under a bushel. (I don’t think this means signing that document; but it does mean doing some things. Maybe each department could be challenged to consider ways to “green” its practices? Maybe we could make this a key part of strategic planning?)