OPINION & EDITORIAL
Where were WISPIRG and CFACT?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Time to back your words with actions (November 14, 2003)
- Doyle delays, but power plant still a promising proposal (March 27, 2003)
- WisPIRG fails to protect students (October 21, 2002)
- Blount Street Power Plant pollution spurs conference (March 3, 2006)
- Letters to the Editor--Nov. 4 (November 4, 2003)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, October 20, 2003
The next time students run down the Lakeshore path, they’ll have more than just trees, fields and other runners to see. They can now look on in surprise and amazement as a power plant quickly rises to cast a shadow on the path.
Last Wednesday, the president of Madison Gas and Electric, the governor and our own chancellor took part in a ceremony to celebrate the construction of this new power plant on what used to be a sports field next to the Natatorium. All worked together in what is being touted as one of the finest cooperative efforts between the private and public sectors.
Gov. Jim Doyle even delayed the project last spring so as to hold public meetings to discuss the issue. And, to the surprise of few, nearly everyone came out in favor of the plant, including this board. They all recognized the increasing need of the University and the surrounding community for power. Without the plant, the University would be unable to expand its BioStar programs, and eventual brownouts would face Madison residents and businesses. Chancellor Wiley said that for every day the University was to go without power, it would lose $800,000.
Even amid widespread approval for the plant, we wonder why environmental groups like the Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group and Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow have done so little to publicly address this subject. True, both groups approach the issue from different perspectives — WISPIRG would like to see more regenerative solutions, and CFACT is in favor of the plant.
But the average student probably does not know the positions of these seg-fee enriched groups because these groups did not launch public campaigns on the issue. After contacting WISPIRG, we have learned that they worked behind the scenes — talking to Wiley, MG&E executives and state legislators — but to no avail. Yet, we wonder, why did their campaign not go public? Some at CFACT argue that their group did not go public due to a lack of funding. Still, why did CFACT and WISPIRG not try to gain more credibility among students on campus by addressing the leading environmental issue for campus residents? Why did WISPIRG and CFACT not take part in a widespread, active debate about a plant every student will become keenly aware of as they walk down lakeshore path?
While we approve of this plant, we regret that environmental student groups like CFACT and WISPIRG did so little to make the issue widely known to students. We have done our part by issuing our own opinion on the subject on multiple occasions. But ours is not the only student voice on campus. We encourage student groups to do their part to activate an energetic campus debate — especially when the issue is so relevant to students, the environment and our future.
Matt Modell did not participate in this editorial due to his involvement with CFACT.
