Minutes of The Sexcentenary Club (Peterhouse JCR) Open Meeting 15/06/06 – 7pm – Upper Sex

 

The meeting was chaired by Pete Davies, JCR President.

The minutes were taken by Pete Davies, JCR President.

 

Despite the meeting being scheduled for immediately after the England match (when the JCR was very full) everyone left leaving 16 members of the Sexcentenary club present at the start of the meeting, and it was therefore inquorate.

 

There were no questions to the JCR executive.

 

Motions for debate

 

  • Green Energy

 

Green Energy in College

 

Proposed by: Jennifer Taylor, JCR Charities, Campaigns and Environment Officer

Seconded by: Pete Davies, JCR President

 

The Sexcentenary Club Notes

  1. Human-induced climate change is a reality recognised by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) comprised of hundreds of climate change scientists. The IPCC released its Third Assessment report (January 2001), predicting significant changes in climate over the next 100 years with potentially devastating effects.
  2. The environmental costs of fossil fuel-derived electricity are substantial, and are not factored into current market prices. Hence carbon-neutral electricity has benefits that are not reflected in the market price.
  3. All licensed electricity suppliers in the UK are being required by the UK Government, through the “Renewables Obligation (RO)”, to increase the proportion of their electricity that comes from renewable sources, such that by 2010, 10% of the UK’s electricity will come from renewable sources.
  4. High-profile consumers such as the consortium of Cambridge colleges can help to stimulate the market and encourage generators to invest in green energy schemes that may exceed government targets.
  5. All colleges in Cambridge belong to a consortium to purchase energy. Currently there exist two contracts, for large and small sites separately; small sites are powered by Scottish & Southern Energy (97% ‘green’), large sites are powered by British Gas. On the 30th September 2006 contracts will be renewed. There is no permanent commitment renewable electricity.
  6. The government introduced in April 2001 a Climate Change Levy, making it possible for some public bodies such as Cambridge University to obtain green electricity on a cost-neutral basis. In 2004 the university acquired 23% of its electricity as ‘green’ with no added cost. Cambridge colleges are in a position to take advantage of this levy and may be able to purchase green energy at a cost-neutral basis.
  7. Additional financial costs incurred through the purchase of renewable and carbon-neutral electricity can be minimized through energy efficiency and savings.
  8. Some renewable electricity providers invest far more in new capacity than others, and that the system of ‘Renewables Obligation Certificates’ allows some companies to provide ‘regulatory additionality’ (whereby the source of the electricity is renewable generation, additional to that required by UK legislation or regulations).

 

The Sexcentenary Club Believes

  1. That as a responsible institution, this college has a duty to reduce its carbon emissions and make a clear statement of commitment to environmental principles.

 

The Sexcentenary Club Resolves

  1. To put pressure on the Bursar to:
    1. Support the purchase of electricity from renewable and carbon-neutral energy suppliers in the General Purchasing Sub-Committee of the Bursars’ Committee, with particular preference for those companies which invest in new renewable capacity.
    2. Support a permanent commitment to supply the college with renewable and carbon-neutral electricity.
    3. Commit to look into the options of generating renewable energy on site.
    4. Work towards reducing energy consumption in college.

 

 

This motion was put forward for JCR open meetings by the CUSU green officer.

 

People questioned how we can argue against increased costs like the energy surcharge and expect college to go out of its way to find green energy at the same time. According to CUSU changing to greener suppliers won’t cost the college any more. There was some doubt to this statement.

 

It was claimed that this motion won’t change anything, as we struggle to change things by “putting pressure on the Bursar”. Damaging relations with him over this by taking CUSU’s approach and using ‘pressure’ instead of consultation and discussion could harm our position in important matters like discussions on charges for junior members.

 

The Bursar is aiming for lower costs already with energy saving light bulbs and such like.

 

It was suggested that the motion is ‘pure waffle’. What exactly does ‘put pressure on’ mean?

 

The motion passed, with 3 for, 1 against and 12 abstentions, but will not become policy as the meeting was inquorate.