Students LOVE a good cause, particularly if it comes in the form of rational opposition.

The "10 Reasons to Oppose the Sustainability Movement on Your Campus" is a rationale that deserves wide distribution. I don't know how the NAS plans on getting out the message, but I suggest the following: send these 10 points to each college/university newspaper in the country. In my college district, students read the student newspaper regularly, and it is in that forum that I believe they can be reached and inspired. 

In any case, I will personally take these points to the student newspaper editorial staff on the large campus at which I work. The timing is perfect since the administration just announced that our college "is going green" and is in the process of forming various committees "to transform our college community into a sustainable and earth-friendly environment."   

All of this must be understood in a larger context, that of re-education.

It doesn't matter what is demanded to be believed as much as there (a) is something that must be believed, (b) it is grounds to discredit the parents and to teach students to reject thier traditional upbringing, and (c) it is considered dire enough to justify the public condemnation of those students brave enough to challenge the current orthodoxy.

It once was hate speech, then it became social justice and now it is sustainability -- next week it will be something else and it doesn't matter exactly what it is -- as long as it is grounds for the university to decree that the parents are bad.  You simply must destroy the values the students have before you can mold them into your desired format.

The terms change but the conditions remain the same.  Higher education is a vast wasteland of indoctrination where those who oppose it are considered threats to the public order.  It was that way 25 years ago and it remains that way now, notwithstanding changes in the slogans.

 Yes, the climate is changing - it changes continually, as it has for billions of years.  We are now in an interglacial period - the last major Ice Age having ended 10,000 years ago.  (There was a mini Ice Age from the 14th to the 19th century.)  The next Ice Age should be in 10,000 years.  (See the Imbries' Ice Ages.)  Carbon is the basis of life on earth, plants take in carbon dioxide, digest it, excreting oxygen, and animals get carbon-based chemicals from plants.  (See organic chemistry.)  Carbon dioxide forms a small proportion of the atmosphere (2-3 %, I believe).  The most common form of carbon dioxide which is lethal to living things is the HOT AIR from the mouths of the anti-scientific cult of "opponents of climate change."

I one thing that has the largest impact on the environment is that of eating animal flesh of any kind and consuming dairy products, because it takes approximately 10 calories of grains to produce one calorie worth of milk and meat/flesh.  Therefore the highest score should be that of eating vegan.  However, although I have not seen the food section, I bet the score there for normal diets' impact is disproportionately low and eating vegan carries a very small action score, given its importance.  I have experimented with most sustainability items, and find them highly overrated; e.g., tight insulation and small number of windows to maintain interior heat in a cold climate will equal being poisoned by radon and other toxins because of lack of constant ventilation.  On the health scene, obseity, also related to the denial of the fact that vegans who exercise are the only group who are not overweight.  Most so called environmentalists and sustainability gnostics are rank hypocrites.

The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh student newspaper, the Advance-Titan, wrote about "Sustainability is a Waste" here. The staff writes, "the idea that an ideology enters any classroom unexamined is something students should be concerned about. As students, we have the first and foremost duty to educate ourselves for the future. Our goal should first be to learn something about the world before attempting to change it in ways we may not fully understand."

Would you say the same things if a different word were used in place of sustainability? What if the effort at universities was not about sustainability and all the accompanying social causes that have been attached, but instead was framed around the idea of conservation?  Energy conservation saves money. Would you be opposed to an energy conservation iniative? I ask because I too am opposed to sustainability as it has been defined by the contemporary environmentalists, but I am not opposed to energy conservation measures if they save money for the university, especially in these tough times.

Dear Rico776,

You asked if we would be "opposed to an energy conservation initiative" on campus, as opposed to sustainability initiatives. Good question. While conservation of the environment is comprised in the sustainability movement, it makes up only a part of it and should not be mistaken to be interchangeable with sustainability. The National Association of Scholars is not opposed to energy-saving and money-saving efforts. We are concerned, however, when colleges and universities use a seemingly blameless term like "sustainability" to advance a particular ideological agenda. The campus "diversity" doctrine has been used in similar ways. Of course no one is opposed to the idea of diversity. But when you see the things "diversity" is used to justify - racial preferences, identity group segregation, prejudice - you should doubt the merits of such a principle. The same goes for the sustainability movement, which sells eco-responsibility but delivers big government, economic redistribution, and loss of individual freedoms.