Columbia is going green. Environmental stewardship; administrative task forces; Columbia College Student Council eco-campaigns; Campus Sustainability Day; organic-certified, fair-trade coffee; college sustainability report cards; recyclemania; and so many other delightful terms have entered our lexicon. Welcome to the world of Jeffrey Sachs! But for all the legitimate criticism, Columbia stands to benefit from a pragmatic, economical, and efficient environmental program-as long as we remember three things. First, we must view Columbia as a business, not an ideologically driven institution. Second, all efforts to go green must avoid the wiles of excess. There is such a thing as "too much." Lastly, if the program is to succeed, it must take innovative steps to include the student community.

Though it might come as a shock for some, students and administrators must recognize that Columbia is run as a business. It operates to advance its own ends, and we should expect no less. When other top-tier and Ivy League schools go green to attract a particular student population or appease trustees and donors, Columbia must follow. Similarly, had other universities not adopted novel financial aid packages to improve their prestige, recognition, and long-term bottom line, would Columbia have responded in kind? Highly unlikely. Competition is a beautiful thing. We would be remiss to characterize Columbia's environmental sustainability project as our idealistic but woefully naive peers do-as a chance to save the world. There are realistic goals and limits. With countless better ways to spend our tuition than on electricity bills, think of such programs as means to cut costs.

There's nothing as infuriating as walking past Butler library late on a Saturday night to find the lights of every empty, subterranean office on. And while I shed no tear for Alaskan caribou, nor do I plan on setting sail with Greenpeace anytime soon, I, too, recognize waste. Given-small, simple steps will, over time, amount to something substantial. But we must also accept the existence of an unwelcome green extreme. This is nowhere better articulated than on Columbia's environmental Web site. In what any amused visitor could only call the great "bathroom dilemma," site administrators pontificate on "the advantages and disadvantages in terms of environmental impact of hand dryers vs. paper towels." "Air-Drying," the sages conclude, "is the only way to be 100 percent environmentally sensitive." Unfortunately, this does little to get out of my head the haunting image of University President Lee Bollinger flailing and flapping his hands dry as he runs off to meet the Dalai Lama. Oh, the things we do for the environment.

Although a small and sardonic example, it teaches us to mind the slippery slope: what if environmental ideologues push for a full commitment to renewable resources or other boutique-read, expensive-firms and providers? If we let ideology, not practicality, govern the process today, there's little hope for the future. The administration must be willing to set boundaries-students and alumni concerned with how the University spends its money must support limitations, as well. But be warned: the fire and brimstone rhetoric of an ideologically constructed "social consciousness" is never content with the status quo.

Finally, it's going to take a lot more then press releases and sporadic op-eds to fashion an active, participating student body. If the University wants student participation-if it wants to avoid making this another top-down, bureaucratic effort-students must have a vested interest in the process. My plan is simple. Establish periodic benchmarks to measure the amount of electricity, water, or waste saved not only University-wide but in individual dorms and campus facilities. If students, staff, and faculty can maintain these improved levels, reward them. "Resources saved" translates into "money saved." Take a set amount, 25 or 50 percent of those funds, and invest it-renovate dorms, adequately fund student organizations, renovate student facilities, or just fund all those great proposals that, because of supposed "monetary constraints," are never brought to fruition. With the rest, augment the endowment and pay for future green improvements.

Who, exactly, would measure and implement such a program? We're paying for the new director and Office of Environmental Stewardship-let's make the most of it. While countless plans and practices would work just as well, the underlying idea for each is the same: make the results tangible for student and University alike. We can't afford to allow abstract "report cards," independent auditors, and ideology to govern this nascent and potentially advantageous movement.