It’s cold, dark, and damp; a landscape that could use the warming these students are fighting to prevent.
  In efforts to bring attention to climate change and induce a bill that would form a task force to research paths towards 100% clean energy in Massachusetts by 2020, college students from across the state are camping on the Boston Common. Nathan Nesbitt ’11, Linnea Paton ’11, and Genevieve Boman ’10 along with Professor John Sanbonmatsu represent WPI’s part of the action.
  “I [realize] how dependant we are on environmental systems for our quality of life,” said Paton. During his junior year of high school, Paton participated in the 2007 national Canon Envirothon competition, taking first place.
  The sleep-out, organized by the Leadership Campaign, demonstrates the students’ unwillingness to live in homes, dorms, or apartments that are powered by “dirty energy.” The term is coined to aggregate a group of substances that provide us with energy while emitting pollutants into the Earth’s atmosphere, potentially causing global climate change. Included in this category are coal, oil shale, and tar sands.
  Each Monday morning after the sleep-out, the participants march on the State House to lobby representatives and senators to take legislative action, regulating the processes many scientists say are the cause of climate change. The march on Nov. 15 was led by environmental author Bill McKibben, writer of the bestseller, “The End of Nature.”
  Joining the sleep-out on Nov. 8, NASA scientist James Hansen indicated a cap of 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere is necessary as this, “is the most our planet can sustain without seeing drastic effects from rapid climate change.”
  Other scientists are not so sure. Though the petition was eventually rejected, a group of 160 members of the American Physical Society sent a letter to society leaders asking for a review of the society’s official stance on global warming. After the Nov. 8 rejection, the deciding APS committee recommended that the statement at least be reviewed and possibly revised to meet current scientific findings.
  As a protest, the sleep-out is against the rules and regulations imposed on the Boston Common. Specifically stated in Section 1, (f), “[No person shall] enter, or remain in, any public park between the hours of 11:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on any day except for the purpose of going through such park on the walks…”
  Duly doing their jobs, the police have now shown up at two of the weekly sleep-outs. They gave no citations but only gathered the participant’s information, warning of possible citations in the future. Despite having their information taken twice, Nesbitt, Paton, and Boman refuse to be deterred.
  “The police are simply doing their job,” said Nesbitt. “We understand this and we are grateful to have them there, keeping us safe. We are aware of the risk we choose to take when we decide to camp on the commons.”
  Sanbonmatsu is not surprised that the police were ordered to show up but admits it would be nice “if Governor Deval Patrick ordered [them] to ignore the protestors.” He points out that the Boston Common has been a central area of protests from abolitionists, labor activists, and protests against many of America’s wars.
  “How appropriate, then, that WPI students and others should make their voices heard on the Common at a time when the health and viability of many species, including our own, is endangered as the direct result of government indifference and corporate malfeasance.”
  When asked about possible forms governmental climate regulations could take, Sanbonmatsu listed three main areas of need: corporate capitalism, excessive personal consumption, and meat production.
  “[Climate legislation] could create incentives for businesses to switch to solar power and wind energy.  It could run a public awareness campaign directed at consumers, encouraging them not to consume more useless junk. It could even create a “sin tax” on meat, to encourage a shift toward a meatless diet,” Sanbonmatsu said. “Few people know that relying on animal rather than vegetable-based proteins for one’s nutrition is as bad for the climate as driving an SUV.”
  Divides between opposing sides of the climate change debate show among WPI professors. Sanbonmatsu recently sent an email to the employee’s mailing list inviting others to join him and the students on the common this past Sunday. A reply alluded to the email being inappropriate for the employee list, calling its political agenda “radical.”
  Such exchanges represent more than hard feelings. Both sides of the climate change debate defend their claims staunchly. Assistant Professor Robert Krueger, in support of regulations preventing human-driven climate change, says “The current system supports the current load of energy consumption but this might not be the right way to go.” Krueger is the Director of the Environmental Studies Program
  In support of the opposing view, Associate Professor George Kaminski points out pertinent questions he feels need to be asked.
  “What exactly is the technology or technologies that will be used? What will be the cost of such a massive overhaul? Who will foot the bill?” said Kaminski. “Do we want the government to control our life to the degree of telling us how we can or cannot power our homes? Will we be able to use as much as a fireplace at will?”
  To Kaminski, the debate should shift to science, engineering, and marketing.
  “I suspect that honest answers to [my] questions would lead to an acknowledgement…that the declared goal is not achievable in ten years, that billions of dollars would be wasted, the economy ruined as a result, and the government will end up having more control over our daily lives.”
  Sided with Krueger, Sanbonmatsu believes the issue truly is political, proving this stance with his presence at the sleep-out.
  “We could collectively reduce our energy consumption as a nation by 80% next year, if we choose to,” said Sanbonmatsu. “What must always be borne in mind is that the ‘feasible’ is only limited by our imagination and our willingness to change.”
  Key to the discussion revolving around the sleep-out is its purpose. Though many believe their bill calls for 100% clean energy production in Massachusetts by 2020, it in fact only calls for the forming of a task force to study potential paths towards that goal. The protest, and bill, is a stepping stone towards the Leadership Conferences ultimate goal of 100% clean energy.
  Despite disagreements and fundamental differences in their stances, these professors generally agree with the method of action taken by Nesbitt, Paton, and Boman. Krueger pointed out WPI’s high score in one recent college ranking’s apathy category and “applauds” the active students in their efforts.
  “WPI is not only about educating technically competent engineers, it’s about educating adults, active in the world around them,” said Krueger.
  Further delving into the issue of climate change and the methods used to spread clean energy, some distinguish between “clean energy” and “good energy.” Krueger points to large scale dam projects such as Canada’s Hydro-Quebec projects which displaced many native Indians and killed or displaced even more animals.
  “One of the key things WPI is starting to understand is clean energy is different than good energy,” said Krueger. “It cannot compromise social justice.”