Going Green Across the River

In the past few years, Harvard as an institution has become increasingly interested in its environmental impact. From the Design School’s green roofing of Gund Hall and other structures, to the University-wide recycling program, to the College’s Resource Efficiency Program, Harvard has made great strides in its effort to become a truly “green” campus. But in a recently publicized agreement on environmental standards it will adhere to in building the new Allston campus, Harvard has taken its biggest step thus far.

Harvard’s agreement, which will cap greenhouse gas emissions from the new Allston science complex at 50 percent below the national standard, is the first constraint on such emissions from a large project that carries legal weight. Additionally, the University has agreed to cap emissions from all other Phase I Allston projects—those to be built in the next 20 years—at 30 percent below the national standard. This agreement should serve as a standard for future Harvard projects in Allston as well as for other institutions of higher education planning expansion.

In order to start building in Allston, Harvard was required to submit an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office (MEPA). Even though the City considers the first 20 years of building in Allston as a single project, Harvard’s Allston Development Group successfully sought a waiver to divorce the Science Complex from that grouping and file a unique ENF.

This move was not without its controversy; during the public comment period, many Allston residents wrote letters to MEPA Secretary Ian. A Bowles expressing concern that piecewise approval of individual Allston projects would prevent a comprehensive understanding of the long-term environmental impact of Harvard’s Allston expansion. While their concern is understandable, it would be unrealistic to ask Harvard to plan all 20 years of construction in exacting detail before moving the first stone, and the Allston Development Group may very well learn important lessons while building the first structure.

Allston residents further commented that Harvard’s definition of “environment” is too narrow, asking Harvard to make stronger commitments to green space and to traffic concerns . . . . Some are not yet convinced that Harvard’s talk of “open space” in its Master Plan for Allston will translate well; Allston resident Michael Pahre pointed out in one of the letters opposing the waiver, “the green space [designated in the Science Complex plans] is in a private, enclosed space encircled by four buildings.”

In this vein, we hope that Harvard will keep in mind that its impact on the environment cannot be entirely quantified by carbon emissions and solar energy production statistics. The Allston campus should improve the Allston environment in the broadest sense as well—even if this is not the type of commitment that can be written into an ENF. It is essential, for example, that Soldier’s Field Road go underground and that parks accessible to the Allston community at large be incorporated into the Allston plan.

As we move forward into a century in which climate change and environmental pollution promise to be among the most pressing issues of the day, an institution with Harvard’s clout has a responsibility to lead the charge. Harvard’s commitment to carbon emissions caps for the Science Complex, and more significantly for all of Phase I, are a commendable start.