Duke will likely NOT be carbon neutral in 2025.
As outlined in this recent article, Duke achieved carbon neutrality in 2024 by relying heavily on purchasing carbon credits — costing $4 million and covering two-thirds of its emissions — to offset its footprint. These credits cannot be reused, and Duke has already bought more than initially planned due to renewable energy project delays.
The wording on Duke’s sustainability commitments website has received subtle changes: An April 2024 capture of the page finds that “Duke University … set the goal to become climate neutral by 2024,” whereas a current version, from February 2025, has been updated to say “climate neutral in 2024.” One of these implies an ongoing continuation of neutrality, while the other is finite. This is a small but significant difference.
Duke’s shifting rhetoric on climate action isn’t just a matter of minor semantics — it reflects a deeper pattern of institutional decisions that seem at odds with its stated environmental commitments. The university’s approach to sustainability appears increasingly disingenuous, prioritizing its image — such as meeting climate goals through purchasing credits — over substantive, long-term investment. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its decision to shut down the Duke Herbarium.
The herbarium is one of the largest private university collections in the country and has been a critical resource for climate research, biodiversity studies and ecological preservation. Yet despite its scientific significance and potential for continued use in climate-related studies, Duke administrators decided to close it — without consulting faculty or considering alternative funding options. The justification? Maintaining the herbarium would require $25 million.
However, this figure could be disputed. The administration argues that this amount would be necessary to fund the location and staff costs, with the yearly returns from an additional $25 million investment into Duke’s $11.9 billion endowment covering ongoing expenses. Yet, in its 104-year history, the herbarium has never required an independent endowment, and there is no clear reason why this standard should now be imposed. According to Kathleen Pryer, professor of biology and the director of the Duke Herbarium since 2005, the actual yearly cost could consist of two staff salaries plus additional faculty positions that may exist regardless of the herbarium’s operation.
The administration argues that it is not worth bearing these costs, as the herbarium only provides minor research services in proportion to its space requirements. Susan Alberts, Robert F. Durden distinguished professor of biology and dean of natural sciences, who announced the closure of the Duke herbarium in an email to the faculty one year ago, said that out of the 2,000 papers published by Duke faculty, 23 included the keyword “herbarium”. Deciding to close a 104-year-old institution based on a keyword search seems overly simplistic and flawed. Like a herbarium, a library provides foundational resources supporting research in countless ways, even if scholars don't necessarily mention “library” in their work.
On a closer look, the herbarium delivers valuable research, especially related to climate and biodiversity science. One project uses plant species like ferns and pine trees to monitor lithium contamination — an emerging public health issue linked to battery and solar panel production. By analyzing these plants, researchers aim to map lithium toxicity across North Carolina, showcasing the herbarium’s unique contributions to environmental science.
Furthermore, the herbarium plays a crucial role in fostering new research, including engaging young researchers. For instance, a local high school student collaborated on a Duke study examining how the flowering time of the pink lady’s slipper has changed over the last 150 years. The research revealed that the flower now blooms 12 to 17 days earlier, providing valuable insights into the effects of the climate crisis on plant life. This kind of hands-on research offers emerging scientists a unique opportunity to contribute to ongoing biodiversity studies.
The relevance of the herbarium extends beyond the field of botany. For example, Andrew Griebeler, assistant professor of art, art history and visual studies, utilizes the herbarium’s resources in his research — studying botanical illustration and providing students with valuable learning experiences and materials for research projects. During his time as a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton — whose herbarium was shut down in the 1970s — such resources and expertise were no longer available there, limiting opportunities for interdisciplinary research.
One argument put forth by Duke’s administration is that digitalization can serve as a substitute for maintaining a physical collection. While high-resolution imaging and DNA sequencing have indeed revolutionized research, they cannot fully replace the herbarium itself. According to Pryer, only half of Duke’s collection has yet to be digitized, meaning that if the physical specimens are dispersed or lost, a significant part of its scientific value could vanish. Furthermore, as Griebeler’s research demonstrated, the herbarium is more than just a repository of plant specimens — it is also a hub of expertise. The knowledge tied to these collections is irreplaceable; without the herbarium, Duke risks losing not only its plant specimens but also the generations of specialized knowledge that have been cultivated alongside them.
A recent PNAS paper explicitly describes this process, stating that “the loss of collections infrastructure and expertise also represents the loss of crucial opportunities for training and specimen-based education.” For Duke, which heavily relies on its reputation, the closure of the herbarium is a very public contradiction of its own stated goals.
Even after massive outrage from experts and researchers in prominent publications and over 20,000 signatures on a petition, Duke’s administration remains steadfast in its decision to close the herbarium. In January, the Herbarium Working Group conducted three interviews with potential institutions — the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the New York Botanical Garden, and the Fort Worth Botanic Garden — in an effort to find a new home for the collection. Notably, the University of Florida has already withdrawn from discussions, citing insurmountable space constraints that preclude accommodating Duke’s large collection.
The loss of herbarium collections is more than just a financial decision; it is a direct blow to climate science at a time when current political agendas threaten environmental policies. Research conducted using herbarium specimens has provided concrete evidence of changing global temperatures and their impact on plant life. Without these collections, our capacity to model future ecological trends and design effective conservation strategies would be significantly diminished.
Like its reliance on carbon offsets rather than real emissions reductions, Duke’s closure of the herbarium signals a troubling trend of focusing on sustainability commitments that look good on paper but crumble under financial scrutiny. The contradiction is clear: While the university touts its dedication to tackling climate change, it is simultaneously discarding an irreplaceable tool for studying its effects.
Jakob Hagedorn is a visiting international student from Berlin, Germany.
Editor's note: A previous version of this article stated “Duke will NOT be climate-neutral in 2025.” The sentence was adjusted to state “Duke will likely NOT be carbon neutral in 2025.” This is to acknowledge that the University has not publicly stated whether it plans to maintain carbon neutrality in 2025 and that Duke had a carbon neutrality commitment, rather than a climate neutrality commitment, in 2024.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.