Don’t treat climate goals like a checklist
JUST recently, I raised the question “Why choose Shell?” in a renewable energy (RE) project, given that Shell has undermined the urgency and scientific consensus surrounding climate change.
Today, I want to share with you an opinion from an Ateneo environmental science student and a Climate Tracker Asia fellow, Nigel Angel Tan. I am publishing it in this column with his permission:
“In what quickly became one of the most influential modern papal encyclicals, the urgency of global action against the climate crisis was put into the forefront in Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical, ‘Laudato Si.’
“The landmark encyclical highlighted the importance of communal participation and cooperation, alongside seeking concrete solutions against the shared environmental challenges faced by all. At the same time, it warns of blind confidence or resignation in said solutions.
“This document would become the backbone for the ‘Laudato Si’ Schools’ framework, encouraging educational institutions to integrate environmental action into their operations. The Ateneo de Manila University shared its aspiration of becoming a ‘Laudato Si’ University by 2029.
“It was in this same goal that the university revealed the intention to become a fully carbon-neutral campus by 2030.
“To achieve this, Ateneo signed a supply agreement with Shell Energy Philippines (SEPH) last May 23 — effectively switching the Loyola Heights campus toward 100 percent RE three days later.
“However, is the switch to carbon neutrality and renewable energy really as simple as it appears?
“This switch came out of nowhere. As of writing, no official university memoranda detailing key information about the partnership exists. The little publicly available information comes from external sources alone.
“No avenues for dialogue were available beforehand. By the time the Ateneo population was made aware of the partnership, it was far too late for any constructive feedback to be addressed. The university administration itself stressed the importance of interactive dialogue from both the student body and organizations, making this radio silence much more concerning.
“Following the few known details of the agreement, 80 percent of the campus energy needs would be provided remotely by SEPH, while the remaining 20 percent would come from solar panels located on campus buildings.
“As a consequence of the silence, any safeguards or measures relating to the program are unknown — how do we ensure and quantify that the university is being provided electricity from purely renewable sources and not pooled energy from both renewable and fossil fuel sources?
Ethical questions
“Future sustainability and carbon neutrality developments are unclear as well. Are there plans to expand the share of the university, given the current 80-20 split with SEPH?
“Then comes the question of ethicality, especially with regard to the energy provider.
“Shell has been found to have ‘engaged in willful obfuscation of climate science’ by a 2022 Commission on Human Rights report. In addition, Shell has weakened its emission reduction targets in the following decades, and shown continued investment in another form of fossil fuels: liquid natural gas.
“As a university that aspires to be in line with the principles of ‘Laudato Si,’ is it then conscientious to partner up with SEPH?
“It’s ironic that the very institution that encourages critical thinking expects its constituents to accept this development without any additional context. Why have this veil of secrecy? Is it not in the best interest of the university to rally its community behind sustainable movements?
“There is no question that the eventual switch to renewable is necessary. However, this move opens the door to more questions and concerns being raised with no proper avenues for these to be addressed.
“I ask questions not for the sake of pessimism but rather as an effect of the ‘act first, consult later’ decision-making that seems to have prevailed. Climate solutions should be a matter of participatory action refined over time with the help of relevant stakeholders, yet most of them are not given the chance to participate in a dialogue.
“Climate goals should not be treated as a checklist, nor as a way to collect accolades to throw around. With Ateneo leading the charge toward carbon-neutral universities, the institution should set a good example of what a smooth transition is — while being careful to not get blindsided by the prestige of being ‘the first.’
“I admire Ateneo’s commitment toward climate action, and therefore, hope steps are being taken in the right direction and done in good faith.
“Action should be taken fast, but not at the expense of integrity.”
The author is the founding executive director of the Young Environmental Forum and a director of Climate Tracker Asia Inc. He completed a climate change and development course at the University of East Anglia (United Kingdom) and an executive program on sustainability leadership at Yale University (USA). You can email him at ludwig.federigan@gmail.com.