In August 2023, after being shuffled around in State Farm Center, I waited anxiously for the New Student Convocation. It was moments away from starting. As a freshman, like many at the time, I didn’t know what I was doing in college. But it was the speech they played for us from the University’s first regent, John Gregory, from his 1868 address at the inauguration of the University, that affirmed why I was here.
“The hungry eyes of toiling millions are turned, with mingled hope and fear, upon us, to see what new and better solution we can possibly offer of the great problems on which their well-being and destiny depend,” Gregory said.
This University promised me something more than other universities: a commitment to produce the extraordinary. Yet, as I now understand, our administrators insist on abdicating this commitment, placing it solely on students and faculty.
Often, first impressions are the most important, and these were mine. From this impression, I knew that this institution would offer me and the thousands of students around me with the tools needed to change the world.
For me and many other adolescents, there is a reasonable dread for the future that awaits us. Rebuilding our neutered political system, creating economic justice for all and solving the climate crisis particularly come to mind as our society’s “great problems.”
Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!
In the microcosm of the Champaign-Urbana community, we can observe how the University perceives its role in addressing these problems — more specifically, the climate crisis.
Housing over 60,000 students, it’s reasonable that the University would attempt to reduce each student’s environmental impact. To this end, the Illinois Climate Action Plan recommends initiatives increasing the use of sustainable transportation, reducing waste and reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. However, progress toward these goals is lacking.
The Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District is a crowning achievement of these goals. According to a 2019 report, 61% of daily MTD ridership comes from University bus stations.
With this consistent use and support for MTD from the University, as well as its funding from student fees, MTD developed more sustainable infrastructure. MTD is the first in the nation to order 60-inch articulated hydrogen fuel cell buses.
Yet, this initiative, like the others in iCAP, relies solely on students to lead to these changes.
Students, faculty and administrators produce the iCAP throughout the process of writing, evaluating and gaining approval from the chancellor. However, these recommendations are just that: recommendations. Because of the document’s nonbinding nature, the University has no incentive to develop a more sustainable campus.
Again, most — if not all — of the progress under the iCAP is accomplished by students and faculty, rather than top-down initiatives from University administrators.
This progress is accomplished through funding iCAP projects, which is provided by the Student Sustainability Committee. The student-led board evaluates and funds grassroots projects, distributing funding paid by students through the Sustainable Campus Environment Fee and the Cleaner Energy Technologies Fee.
As a result of this student outsourcing, yearly progress toward iCAP goals is depressing.
Our University promised to be different, which is why I, and many others, chose to enroll here. Yet, when it comes to this particular issue, it avoids taking the most obvious and tangible steps toward change.
The University receives roughly 75% of its energy from its Abbott Power Plant. This plant does not rely on renewable energy. Instead, it utilizes natural gas, coal or fuel oil in its boilers and combustion turbines. Prairieland Energy Inc. purchases the remaining 25% of our energy consumption, which is solely owned by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. As of 2024, only 13% of our total energy comes from renewable energy sources — wind and solar power.
We should, and could, have solar panels on the roof of every campus building. These panels would offer us a reliable stream of renewable energy. Even for those who cite aesthetic reasons, there is no excuse for this University to be on some of the flattest land while not having acres of solar panels and wind farms supplying energy.
If the University was actually committed to being carbon neutral as soon as possible or by 2050 at the latest, as it pledged by signing the Second Nature Climate Commitment in 2008, we would be developing sustainable energy infrastructure now. Yet, there is no plan for this.
Even if implemented now, these infrastructure changes would take years to complete. However, we have actions that could be taken now. For example, divestment from fossil fuel companies would reduce the carbon footprint, not just in the C-U community but for the entire nation.
Doubtlessly, there will be those who claim the funding doesn’t exist, to which I reply by asking where the sum of our exorbitant student fees goes. Regardless, the funding certainly could exist. After all, if we have $170 million to invest in fossil fuels, then we have the money to develop renewable energy for our campus.
With that, I would like to remind the University of the words from its first regent who realized our great commitment to the millions watching “to see what new and better solution we can possibly offer of the great problems on which their well-being and destiny depend.”
Grayson is a junior in LAS.
