For the eighth year in a row, Sierra magazine has dedicated a big chunk of its September/October issue to higher education. So why is the "Cool Schools" issue such a big deal? I'll give you a hint: It's not because of the schools.

Over the last few years, I've spoken to many different audiences about how clean energy is going to change our world -- I never get tired of talking about it. And people seem to appreciate hearing the good news that we're already well on our way to a future without fossil fuels. But one particular audience always leaves me with a net surplus of energy -- and that's college students. I don't know if it's because young people have always been passionate about social issues or because our planet's future is especially important to the people who'll be spending the most time there, but young people seem to possess a singular fervor for making the world a better place.

So, although the "Cool Schools" sustainability rankings of universities around the country are interesting in and of themselves, their most important function is to foster accountability. Colleges and universities should be leading the charge on sustainability and the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. When they don't, students will be the first to speak up.

Here's how the Sierra Club is going to help them do that. Tomorrow, the Sierra Student Coalition will launch a new Campuses for Clean Energy campaign. Its goal is to build on the growing student-led movement around the country calling on school administrations to demand enough clean energy from their utility providers to power campuses with 100 percent renewable energy. Universities are often some of the biggest energy users, which means they're well positioned to put significant pressure on utility providers.

Universities can apply pressure in other ways, too, such as divesting from fossil-fuel companies. Sierra's "Cool Schools" issue examines a partial but significant victory along those lines: Stanford University's decision to divest from coal-mining stocks. The U.S. currently has more than 400 student-led campaigns to persuade institutional investors to divest from fossil-fuel stocks.

In addition to committing to renewable energy and divesting from dirty fuels, colleges and universities can use their influence to advocate for statewide policies that will bring more clean energy online. Given the current inertia in Washington, D.C., such campaigns will be crucial for years to come.

Regardless of how "cool" they may be, though, colleges and universities are still institutions, and institutions tend to accumulate quite a bit of inertia of their own. You can't say the same, thank goodness, for their students. The issue may be called "Cool Schools," but really it's awesome students whom we're counting on.

Wow! I was confident that people would turn out to support the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan at last week's public hearings in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Denver, and Washington, D.C., but I wasn't counting on a success this big. Advocates for clean air and cleaning up carbon pollution made their voices heard with both passion and eloquence. The opposition showed up, but they really couldn't compete with the notion that clean energy will cut costs, create jobs, clean up our air and water, and give us a shot at stabilizing our climate. All week long, the hearings confirmed the broad support we've seen from all kinds of people since the day the EPA announced its plan.

The diversity of the voices demanding action was especially impressive. In Denver, for instance, testifiers included a retired Air Force Captain who literally wrote the book on the national security implications of climate disruption, local clean-energy business owners, some kids from New Mexico who sang a song in support of the Clean Power Plan (lots of kids at these hearings!), representatives from the ski and winter sports industry, and tribal leaders from across the West.

In Washington, my friend the Rev. Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus was just one of many faith leaders (including quite a few evangelicals and conservative Christians) who spoke eloquently about our responsibility as stewards of God's creation.

And everywhere: People showed up because they believe it's long past time our nation gets serious about the pollution that's disrupting our climate.

But you don't have to take my word for it. You can see for yourself what' happened and who testified by checking out the Sierra Club's Storify page.

Successful as it was, though, last week only marked the first steps of a much longer journey toward our goal of ending carbon pollution from coal- and gas-fired power plants and accelerating the transition from dirty fuels to clean energy. The good news is that the way the EPA has structured its plan -- with each state required to develop its own plan for meeting the guidelines -- tilts the field to our advantage. The Sierra Club not only is the largest environmental organization in the country; we're also the one with the most grassroots organizing muscle. That means we can push hard to make each state's plan both smart and effective, with as much clean energy and energy efficiency as possible.

One last thing to remember about these hearings: Most opposition to the plan has come from the usual suspects -- the same voices that have opposed every attempt to curb pollution for the past 40 years. But some people at the hearings, those whose livelihood depends on the coal industry, are sincerely afraid for their jobs. The truth is that coal jobs have been in trouble for a long time, and the Clean Power Plan, at most, will only hasten the inevitable. But we still have a responsibility to hear those voices -- and to make sure that in the rush to clean energy we don't leave those folks behind. We've already shown how to do that in Washington State, where we worked with municipalities and utilities to ease the transition from coal plants by ensuring that workers are transferred to other energy jobs. As in Washington State, we need to make sure that the transition to clean energy isn't made on the backs of workers and their families.

Overall, though, last week's hearings look like cause for celebration. The Clean Power Plan is not perfect and needs to be strengthened, but it is the most significant piece of President Obama's Climate Action Plan. And it's off to a rousing start. We'll see bumps along the way, I'm sure, but the path to clean energy, clean air, and climate action has never looked brighter.  

Couldn't make it to one of the hearings? We still need your voice! Please submit your comment to the EPA here.

In his 19th-century curmudgeon's classic, The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defined a plan as "the best method of accomplishing an accidental result." When the EPA released its "Clean Power Plan" this month for reducing carbon pollution from power plants, the agency was clear about the results it expects by 2030: Cutting carbon pollution from the power sector to 30 percent below 2005 levels, while also reducing other air pollutants (which by themselves cause thousands of premature deaths) by 25 percent.

Maybe you've heard that this plan is momentous -- a real game changer. Or maybe you've heard that, by itself, it's not nearly tough enough to get us where we want to be by 2030. Actually, both of those things are true. This plan really is a big deal and it's the payoff for years of hard work by dedicated activists. And, yes, it can and should be made even stronger -- and we're going to keep working to make that happen. Because the plan focuses on action at the state level, the Sierra Club is particularly well positioned to do that, too.

So, kudos to the EPA. But you know what? We've already seen some important results from this plan that -- if not quite "accidental" -- were by no means a sure thing, either.

Because President Obama is walking the walk on his 2009 Copenhagen pledge to reduce emissions, U.S. international credibility on climate action was boosted overnight. Most notably, we had the first indication ever from China that it was considering capping its own carbon emissions -- an announcement that came the day after the EPA rolled out its plan. An important climate summit is happening in Paris next year, and this plan puts the U.S. in a better position to help secure an agreement.

Here at home, the plan has left the fossil-fuel lobby (and the politicians who take their marching orders from the Koch brothers) flailing for a credible response. Many cited a discredited report from the Chamber of Commerce that wasn't even based on the EPA's actual plan. Apart from the Tea Party choir, their sermons fell on deaf ears.

Meanwhile, the plan has drawn considerable support from non-fossil fuel industries and businesses, including some utilities. I think there are at least three good reasons for that. First, the EPA bent over backward to make its plan fair and flexible. Second, the reality of climate disruption has long since been accepted by businesses that can already see its effects on their bottom lines. Third, as the EPA's own analysis shows, these standards not only are a cost-effective response but also will generate new economic opportunities and thousands of jobs.

Most exciting of all has been the response of those who will be most affected by this new plan: the American people. Overwhelmingly, that response has been positive. Polls (including one a week ago from The Wall Street Journal and NBC News) have found two out of three Americans supporting the new standards. Best of all, in at least one poll, a majority stuck to that view whether they were Democrats, Republicans, or independents.

But, getting back to long-term results, do I think that by 2030 we will achieve the results the EPA is aiming for with this plan? No. I think we'll do far better. By 2030, clean, renewable energy will be playing a much bigger role in our economy than the EPA is guessing, and that transformation will multiply the already significant public health, economic, and climate benefits we're expecting from these carbon pollution reductions.

Should that be called an accidental outcome? If so, then it's a happy one.

You can submit an official comment on the EPA's new Clean Power Plan here.