env jf08 rap3 - wordpress.com · in addition, a geothermal system for heating and cooling was...

CO

UR

TES

Y C

LAR

K U

NIV

ER

SIT

YC

OU

RTE

SY

CLA

RK

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 6 12/14/07 1:25:02 PM

Composting toilets in residences, electric vehicles for mail

delivery, locally grown organic food in the dining halls,

biodiesel buses, solar thermal systems to heat water, and

photovoltaic panels for electricity—these are just a few

of the features designed to reduce the environmental

effects of today’s college campuses. Institutions of higher

education are undergoing a wave of greening driven by

infusions of capital, ambitious goals, high visibility, and

high stakes.

The 4,200 colleges and universities in the United States

have more than 17 million enrolled students,1 many of

whom live, learn, eat, and exercise on campuses. Add the

global university population, and the resources consumed

by educational institutions are staggering. If colleges and

universities improve their environmental performance

dramatically, and if they have a long-term influence on

choices made by graduates in their work, homes, and

communities, the collective effect could be vast. Although

campus greening has been going on for decades, recent

initiatives fueled by concern for global warming have the

potential to establish new thinking about infrastructure

development, research programs, investment decisions,

and learning.

The first Earth Day in 1970 inspired student groups,

staff, and faculty to begin greening campuses. Through

the 1990s, efforts focused primarily on increased recy-

cling, more efficient lighting, water conservation, and

waste reduction and procurement, including purchasing

recycled paper.2 Early greening yielded notable successes,

C a mpusGreening BE H I N D T H E H E A DL I N E S

by Ann Rappaport

recycled paper.2 Early greening yielded notable successes,

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 7 12/14/07 1:25:08 PM

8 ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 50 NUMBER 1

saving money and resources, and the experience sparked larger discussions of sustainability.

But along with new greening programs, the 1990s also ushered in an era of dramat-ic growth on campuses. New classrooms, expanded libraries and residences, more computers, and new and better-equipped laboratories all enhanced the educational mission. Colleges also invested in spec-tacular facilities, including indoor kayak runs and state-of-the-art movie theaters.3 All these amenities increase the campus environmental footprint.4 Students today are different from their 1990s counter-parts: they arrive at college loaded with electronic devices and consume a great deal more energy. These factors combine to create a situation in which electricity efficiency measures on most campuses are negated by increased usage.5 College campuses reflect the trend of increasing nationwide electricity consumption. With more than half of U.S. electricity gen-erated by burning coal,6 environmental impact is inevitable.

Contemporary Greening

Current campus initiatives differ from the 1990s versions in that they emphasize energy and climate, they influence the curriculum, and they are often profession-ally staffed. Contemporary efforts, some-times called “sustainability programs,” focus on campus infrastructure, espe-cially buildings and the systems that heat, cool, and power them. Other elements of infrastructure receiving attention include transportation, land use, and water.

Academic discussions of sustainabil-ity raise essential questions about how it is defined and put into operation,7 whether we will know when it occurs,8 and whether we have the social capac-ity to achieve sustainability.9 Efforts on campuses focus on implementing strate-gies or taking action; some are formal programs with goals, and some are ad hoc and opportunistic. At present, “green-ing” is a more accurate description of college programs than “creating sustain-ability;” most are marginal adjustments

that reduce environmental impact rather than comprehensive alternative approach-es that balance social, environmental, and economic dimensions.10

In addition to modifying campus resource use, universities are thinking about energy and infrastructure in terms of managing risks. Colleges and uni-versities in the United States spend an estimated $2 billion per year on energy, which makes cost increases an impor-tant strategic issue11 with serious budget-ary implications. Other risks of concern include the possibility of energy supply interruptions and, as the climate changes, vulnerability to consequences of extreme weather events such as flooding, droughts, and wind.

Energy and Climate Initiatives

Frustrated with the failure of national leaders to address climate change, Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy professor William Moomaw and Kelly Sims Gallagher, then a Fletcher stu-dent, established the groundwork for Tufts University’s pledge in spring 1999 to meet or beat the emissions reductions in the Kyoto Protocol. Hun-dreds of colleges and universities sub-sequently made climate commitments, many linked to local, state, and region-al climate goals. Following through on climate commitments requires that colleges reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.

When reducing emissions of green-house gases, colleges and universities are taking action in four broad catego-ries: increased efficiency, increased use of green power or renewable energy, fuel switching, and reduced demand through changed behavior and expectations.12 These basic categories apply to organizations of all sizes, from households to governments.

Typical building renovations to increase efficiency include adding insulation, installing efficient win-dows, and upgrading the boiler. When Warren Wilson College renovated its Laursen Building, which houses many of its administrative offices, urethane

foam insulation was added to the attic and insulation also was added to the building’s exterior, reducing heating energy require-ments. In addition, a geothermal system for heating and cooling was installed.13 Other ways that colleges can increase efficiency include replacing vehicle fleets with hybrid gas-electric vehicles and installing power-saving office equipment.

Taking advantage of renewable energy options is another way for colleges to clean up their emissions. Solar energy was incorporated into the design of Stan-ford University’s Leslie Shao-Ming Sun Field Station at the ecologically sensi-tive Jasper Ridge Biological Reserve.14 Massachusetts Maritime Academy added a 248-foot tall 660 kilowatt (kW) utility-scale grid-interconnected wind turbine to its Buzzards Bay campus.15 When on-site renewable energy generation is infeasible, green power can be purchased. Lewis and Clark College established a green-power purchasing program in 2000, and since

• Prospective students are interested in the environment, so green campus maps and green tours are offered. • Doing the right thing, locally and glob-ally, is consistent with campus social action agendas. • More walking and biking will improve health. • Conserving water yields multiple sav-ings: lower water bills, reduced sewer charges, and decreased energy costs. • Colleges with vibrant environmental programs use the campus as a learning laboratory, connecting students to nature through campus field trips, discussions of environmental values and hands-on proj-ects.1 • Greening examples enliven course-work; for example, students in economics learn cost-benefit analysis by assessing alternative flooring choices and then have the satisfaction of seeing their work affect university decisions. • Growing concern about climate change informs many campus activities.

1. P. F. Barlett and G. W. Chase, Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change (Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004).

REASONS FOR CAMPUS GREENING

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 8 12/14/07 1:25:09 PM

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2008 ENVIRONMENT 9

2003 has offered resident students green-power purchase options.16

Fossil fuels vary in their effects on global warming, and fuel switching takes advantage of these differences. Coal gen-erates nearly double the greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas. Fuel oil is not as emissions-intensive as coal, but switching from oil to natural gas reduces emissions as well.17 Tufts University halved the emissions from a small student residence by replacing a dual oil-fired boiler system with an efficient gas unit, installing solar thermal panels for hot water and taking other efficiency measures.

Some possible behavioral changes that could be made as part of greening efforts include turning off computers at night and extinguishing lights in unoccupied rooms. One way to encourage this is by changing expectations, for example, by establishing temperature policies for

campus buildings. Many colleges are cooling and heating less than they did when energy prices were lower. These policies save money and reduce local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions because less fossil fuel is burned.

Part of the popularity of green build-ings lies in the fact that efficiency and renewable energy can be combined in a single project. But colleges cannot become green just by adding efficient buildings. As Sarah Hammond Creighton, director of the Office of Sustainability at Tufts,22 points out, the greenest building is the one you decide not to build. If an old building is demolished when a new high-performance building goes up, then the campus environmental footprint is reduced. However, most institutions are increasing their inventory of built space. A wide range of actions including ambi-tious renovation of existing buildings is

extremely important in shrinking a cam-pus environmental footprint.

These types of initiatives are good for the environment, but they are also good for publicity: campus greening attracts media attention. The waste-free gradua-tion held at College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, was featured in the New York Times.18 In addition, campus sustain-ability research programs are emerging and have received significant media cov-erage.21 Examples include: Washington University in St. Louis, which announced a $55 million program with plans to establish a center for research on renew-able energy and sustainability and capi-tal for improving campus operations,19 and Cornell University is engaging stu-dents in assessments of climate neutral-ity.20 These stories and many like them are being featured in articles by major media outlets.21

Named after two Clark University alumni, the Cathy ‘83 and Marc ‘81 Lasry Center for Bioscience was the first building in Worcester, Massachusetts, to receive LEED certification.

CO

UR

TES

Y C

LAR

K U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 9 12/14/07 1:25:15 PM


Making Changes

Looking behind the headlines, some greening actions are easy for colleges and universities, and others are more difficult.

Easy Steps

The easiest actions involve small changes with effects that add up over time. For example, it is easy for colleges and universities to “do it right the first time” when acquiring goods and servic-

es.23 This means purchasing only the most energy-efficient equipment (everything from printers to pickups) even when there is a price premium on the most efficient model. It also means insisting that others practice efficiency. If contractors provide clothes washers and dryers, contract agree-ments should specify the most efficient equipment on the market. Conventional cold-drink vending machines are very inefficient, with electricity costing more

than $350 per machine annually. Energy Star certified versions now are available; if a contractor cannot provide them, add-ing a special device to existing machines can activate the lights with a motion sensor, significantly reducing electricity consumption while maintaining neces-sary cooling.24 Drinking-water filtration systems eliminate bottled-water deliver-ies and can reduce waste from serving- size bottles.

Tufts University and others use locally sourced food to green their dining halls,

supporting nearby agricultural commu-nities. Buying local reduces the amount of energy used to transport food, and when food service waste is composted, it creates nutrient-rich organic material that can be used on campus as an alter-native to chemical fertilizers. Landscap-ing with native plants, establishing an organic baseball field, and expanding the library’s 40-year-old green roof by plant-ing more area in diverse species are some

of the initiatives overseen by the grounds manager at Tufts who makes campus rounds in a hybrid vehicle.

Lighting upgrades are also relatively easy to implement because the costs can be recovered through electricity savings, often in less than five years. Upgrades include efficient lamps, sophisticated controls and occupancy sensors. Light-ing upgrades in 14 buildings or parts of buildings at Tufts University yield annual savings of more than $90,000.25 Longer-lasting fluorescent bulbs mean less fre-

quent calls for replacement, an important benefit for a campus with chandeliers hung from high ceilings and other hard-to-reach fixtures.

It is easy to find students campaigning to purchase green power, engaging speak-ers for a panel on renewable energy, work-ing with greening organizations in the community, and organizing events such as Step it Up! to raise consciousness.26 One strategy for harnessing this green enthu-

The Warren Wilson College EcoDorm, completed in 2003, models energy-efficient designs and renewable energy sources. Warren Wilson students were heavily involved in the conception and planning of the 36-bed residence hall.

CO

UR

TES

Y S

AM

SE

L A

RC

HIT

EC

TS

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 10 12/14/07 1:25:19 PM


siasm involves students in planning and implementing a robust recycling program. Unlike the lighting upgrades, recycling requires many decisionmakers to change the way they handle waste, and the capi-tal costs of a great recycling program are low. A comprehensive program can be achieved with “sweat equity,” the hard work of committed people (often staff and students working together) who research markets, establish contracts with haulers, set out bins for different materials, and train and organize the campus community to make the system work.

Actions with Hidden Challenges

It is an appealing idea to install renew-able energy technology on a prominent building, but the overall effect on the cam-pus footprint may be small. Two student groups at the University of California, Berkeley voted to approve funds for a 59 kW photovoltaic system on the student union as an educational and leadership initiative. This is a laudable effort by students, but the student union building is described as a “notorious power hog.” As Berkeley’s physical plant staff note, large energy savings will come only after the university makes investments in building efficiency;27 then the solar technology will generate a much greater portion of the student union’s energy. Increasing awareness of effective actions is an edu-cational challenge.

When additional space is needed on campus, colleges can add efficient new buildings. But extreme energy efficiency can be challenging to realize. If construc-tion begins before fundraising is complete, or when the cost unexpectedly exceeds estimates, the design and construction team may engage in last minute cost-cutting by eliminating energy-efficiency measures. This is a shortsighted strategy because lifetime operational costs are far greater than initial construction costs. At College of the Atlantic, new building projects cannot begin until fundraising for construction, operation, and mainte-nance is complete. This innovative policy creates an incentive to create the most

durable and efficient buildings possible.Emory University, the University of

Tennessee at Knoxville,28 and many others have made commitments that new con-struction will qualify for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED29 program cer-tification. This is a positive step, but critics argue that even the latest version of LEED places insufficient value on energy effi-ciency. Similarly, the government program Energy Star is useful because it identifies consumer products and buildings that are comparatively efficient; the top 25 percent of buildings qualify for certification.30 Energy Star’s comparative measurement system also has critics: while being in the top quartile of a poorly performing group is better than being in the bottom quartile, it is not necessarily indicative of the cutting edge. A challenge for colleges and universities is to open constructive dialogue about the limitations of these and other certification systems and work with sponsoring organizations to develop decisionmaking tools that encourage truly high-performance buildings and excep-tionally efficient furnishings.

The Greatest Challenges

Conducting seamless day-to-day cam-pus operations and simultaneously lead-ing a transformation to a dramatically different world is a daunting task. New approaches are needed; some current activities will be transitional, opening the doors to new technologies and new ways of thinking, interacting, and meeting human needs.

Changing Behaviors

Academic administrators desperately want students, faculty, and staff to use less electricity (and other resources). The problem is that many individuals make decisions about using electricity, but on most campuses, the only people who see an electricity bill are the energy manager and a handful of administrators. Faculty and staff behave as though electricity is free because the charge is hidden in the overhead; students behave as though

electricity is free because the charge is concealed in their tuition bill. So why not leave the computer on all the time and download a favorite television series while sleeping or attending class? Campus elec-tricity has become the new commons,31 and the tragedy is that colleges continue paying the bills. Researchers are develop-ing new approaches to help people think about consumption. Social marketing pro-grams encourage turning off computers for at least six hours per day.32 Real-time energy displays help build consciousness, but other strategies are needed. This is an area ripe for experimentation and innova-tion. In the future, perhaps students will purchase electricity plans in the same way they now enroll in meal plans and mobile phone service agreements.

Investing in Infrastructure

A growing number of universities gen-erate their own electricity. Colleges that used to purchase power from a local utility are discovering that building and operating their own combined heat and power system (CHP), also called cogen-eration, can save money in the long run and reduce their carbon footprint. CHP requires a significant capital investment but it can reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions by using less carbon-intensive fuels than the public utilities do, and also improves efficiency by capturing heat energy that otherwise would be wasted. Clark University in Massachusetts has operated a cogeneration system since 1982,33 and the number of institutions investing in CHP has increased in recent years. The University of Rochester main-tains a list of college and university CHP systems in the United States and Canada with over 140 entries.34

Climate change is a hot topic, but many of the actions that significantly reduce campus emissions of greenhouse gases are so obscure and dull that they make a new power plant seem thrilling. For example, the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in most campus buildings are very inefficient. With state-of-the-art HVAC, campus ener-gy use can be reduced dramatically; these

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 11 12/14/07 1:25:20 PM


measures can be taken now, while wait-ing for the cost of photovoltaic panels to decrease. Renovating HVAC systems so that they have sophisticated controls and extremely efficient operations requires technical expertise that many colleges do not have on staff, so consultants are needed for design and installation. Fund-ing this important activity can be dif-ficult, even though the energy savings for efficiency improvements will accrue much more quickly than they will for a photovoltaic panel.

Wellesley College made headlines in 2005 when Leonie Farroll bequeathed a record $27 million to the women’s col-lege.35 Farroll specified that the funds be used for maintenance and capital improvements to the college power plant and for improving efficiency, upgrad-ing, and maintaining heating and cooling systems in the science center. She also requested that the power plant be named in honor of her parents, Berenice and

Joseph Farroll. Farroll’s innovative phi-lanthropy is a model for donors to other universities; efficiency really is a gift that keeps giving.

Thinking differently about the built envi-ronment is a challenge. Regular computer upgrades are an accepted cost of doing business on campuses, with total replace-ment every three to five years. But building systems are rarely upgraded. As a conse-quence, students are living and learning in deteriorating and inefficient buildings whose operational costs and environmen-tal effects are a great deal higher than necessary. New building and efficiency technologies are emerging rapidly, but physical interfaces and the decision sys-tems to support their prompt implementa-tion are sadly lacking. This is unfortunate not only for academia; when universities develop investment strategies and technical approaches that facilitate frequent building upgrades, these technologies will be trans-ferred to governments and businesses.

Evaluating Progress

Arizona State University Presi-dent Michael Crow is urging his peers to join the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, requiring them to develop a plan and target date for becoming climate neutral;36 more than 400 institutions have signed up.37 More than 100 New England colleges and universities pledged to meet the climate goals of the New England Governors and East-ern Canadian Premiers (reduce emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 75 percent over the long term).38 Public com-mitments from college presidents to quantifiable goals have great signaling value because priority issues receive resources.

Evaluation measures progress toward goals, assesses how pro-grams can be improved, identifies elements of a program that are most effective, and reveals problems. But evaluating progress is hard because it takes time and exper-

tise and deflects resources from greening activity. It is hard to move beyond easy actions, and it is hard for colleges to make continuous progress toward goals. Work-ing with students to produce evaluations and post the results on the university’s Web site is a superb strategy for docu-menting progress.

A side effect of public attention is the inevitable pressure to rank and com-pare: Which campus is greenest? Which college is doing the best job on cli-mate change? Answers to these ques-tions are complex and may obscure the real environmental goals. The institu-tional research community is exploring ways to measure campus environmental profiles. If uniform approaches to data collection and reporting are adopted by colleges and universities, comparisons will be more meaningful in the future than they are today.39 For now, a good approach is to compare progress to what evaluators would call a standard; it also can be called a credible effort (see the box at right).

Greenhouse gas emissions are most amenable to comparison because the effect to the environment is the same whether a ton of carbon dioxide is released in Bangalore, India, or Fairbanks, Alaska. Two measurements for comparing col-leges are emissions of greenhouse gases per student and emissions per square foot of campus buildings. However, these simple comparisons have limited value, in part because weather (heating and cooling degree days) is a large factor in determining energy use. But more importantly, comparative climate mea-sures or measures of progress are counter-productive if they deflect attention from totals. Even if a university reduces emis-sions 50 percent below its 1990 baseline, its remaining emissions may be vast. When dealing with atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, the bottom line is total emissions.

Moving Toward Solutions

Acting both collectively and indi-vidually, universities can take steps to

ATTRIBUTES OF A CREDIBLE

GREENING PROGRAM

• The campus master plan includes sustain-ability. • Energy management systems are in place.• Funding for energy efficiency is provided.• Standards are in place for new construction and renovation. • No old lighting technology (incandescent or T-12 lamps) is on campus.• A recycling program is in place.• The curriculum includes robust discussion of climate change and energy. • A program to address single-occupancy vehicle use is in place, and automobile alter-natives are developed and implemented.• A baseline inventory of the institution’s greenhouse gas emissions is conducted and published. The inventory needs to be updated periodically to show progress toward an established goal. A program that is transparent and effective will provide the numbers that document progress, not just the anecdotes.

SOURCE: A. Rappaport and S. H. Creighton, Degrees That Matter: Climate Change and the University (Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007).

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 12 12/14/07 1:25:21 PM


address challenges in moving toward sustainability. Campus efforts will be enhanced by government policy initia-tives and by greater access to capital for infrastructure renovation.

Approaching Climate Neutrality

Planning for climate neutrality begins with an emissions inventory. Most college inventories include all direct emissions (for example, from using fossil fuels to heat buildings and power university vehi-cles) and all indirect emissions (such as those from purchased energy), but there is wide variation in treatment of activi-ties such as faculty, staff, and student commuting; airline and other travel for university research, business, and sports competitions; emissions from grounds maintenance and agricultural activities; and upstream and downstream emissions from goods and services consumed on campus. Figure 1 below, for instance, shows the Tufts inventory and its progress toward the Kyoto goal.

Carbon neutrality is an accounting con-cept, like a balance sheet for a business. The emissions in the campus inventory are like debits on a balance sheet. These debits are balanced by actions that reduce emissions; each of these reductions is like a credit on a balance sheet. When the sum total of emissions is compared to the sum total of reductions and the net result is zero emissions, then neutrality is achieved.

Institutions that pledge to achieve cli-mate neutrality face challenges in prepar-ing consistent inventories and in identify-ing sufficient reductions. Although the efficiency of campuses can be vastly improved and more climate-sensitive energy technologies can be deployed today, without widespread availability of renewable energy, very efficient equip-ment, and extensive building retrofits, few universities will be able to reduce their emissions enough to achieve neutrality in the short term.

Most colleges will be able to fulfill near-term neutrality pledges only by pur-chasing offsets, in other words, paying

someone else to reduce emissions on their behalf. With the cost of offsets ranging from $5.50 to $27.40 per ton of carbon, the dollars add up quickly.40 Instead of giving their money to offsetting organiza-tions, colleges can offset emissions by making investments in their host commu-nities (for example, by funding improved energy efficiency in local public schools). Another approach is to invest in emissions reductions at capital-strapped universities regardless of location, building the finan-cial capital to ensure that climate action promotes mutual advancement and help-ing close the gap between institutions that have wealth and those that do not.

Learning from Problems

The downside to the media attention41 on campus greening is a reluctance to analyze failures and disseminate results in the interest of advancing the field. Fortunately, there are some exceptions. Clark University’s cogeneration facility had a construction error and analytical problems that were carefully documented

Tufts University Carbon Inventory

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Emission Releases (MTCE)

AgricultureTransportationHeat

Electricity

Em issio ns Targ et14,423 M T C E

2006 Estim ate:14,858 M TC E

Figure 1. Tufts University Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

Em

issi

on

s re

lea

ses

in m

etr

ic t

on

s o

f ca

rbo

n e

qu

ival

en

t (M

TCE

)

SOURCE: Tufts University Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2006.

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 13 12/14/07 1:25:24 PM


in the spirit of learning,42 and such can-did assessment has great value. David Orr was a catalyst for an early green building, Oberlin College’s Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies, and his reflections on the venture are thought-provoking.43

Greening efforts have been plagued with problems large and small: occu-

pancy sensors (for turning off lights in vacant classrooms) have been installed above hung ceilings, where the only possible occupants might be vermin; high profile buildings have been poorly designed and less energy efficient than expected; and successful green features have not been replicated in subsequent construction projects on the same cam-pus.44 Failure to replicate success is a particular concern because it raises ques-tions about the capacity of universities as learning organizations.45

Problems are also associated with emerging climate strategies. Carbon off-sets are an example of a market-based solution that is not meeting expecta-tions. Questions have been raised about permanence, transparency, and costs of

many offsets currently on offer.46 For colleges, individuals, businesses, and organizations that purchase offsets, this is unwelcome news, but academics are ideally positioned to assess problems and recommend solutions.

Recent popular media stories raise questions about the progress of corpo-rate greening.47 If universities distinguish

their efforts from those of companies with frequent candid evaluations that are made public, they can avoid unfavor-able publicity in the future and they can advance learning.

Embracing New Approaches

Campus greening is not just about ener-gy; it is also about power. Some adminis-trations share decisionmaking with stu-dents and faculty on matters relating to greening, including master planning, new building conceptual design, investments, and operations. Others are reluctant to “let the inmates run the asylum” and focus faculty and student greening efforts on contests, feasibility assessments, grant proposals, and evaluations of past projects.

Reluctance is understandable: a great deal of greening involves complex equipment choices and details of heating and cool-ing systems that all require specialized knowledge. Colleges operate within many constraints: reliability is essential, mea-sures must be taken to protect students from hazardous conditions, aesthetic stan-dards must be maintained, and budgets are tight. In addition, relationships with communities can be fragile, and strate-gies such as CHP may be avoided out of concern for the neighbors. Little wonder that college presidents privately roll their eyes when asked to install a wind turbine on the administration building.

But energy and climate challenges pose risks to business as usual, and decision-making, even at universities, warrants examining. If colleges are not building the most efficient structures possible, deci-sionmakers are not thinking long term. If they are not actively researching ways to capture and use all sources of waste and energy, including the human energy from exercise equipment in the fitness center, institutions are not capitalizing on their unique strengths. Greening can be an opportunity to make decisions more transparent and inclusive in the interest of more curriculum development, more research, better-prepared graduates, and more social and technological innovations that benefit the university and the larger community.

Addressing Resources

Collectively, colleges and universities command great financial wealth. The value of the endowments of the top 10 U.S. institutions was more than $118 billion in 2006.48 Endowment is just one measure of institutional wealth (real prop-erty is another) and wealth, particularly access to capital, enhances capacity to act in favor of the environment. One challenge in bringing all institutions to the point where they can significantly reduce the environmental effects of their operations, particularly their greenhouse gas emis-sions, is access to capital.

Wealthy institutions create funds for campus efficiency projects, take advantage

Solar panels atop Tufts University’s Sophia Gordon Hall provide energy for water heating in the small residence building.

© J

OA

NIE

TO

BIN

/TU

FTS

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 14 12/14/07 1:25:27 PM


of utility rebate programs, and benefit from state renewable energy grant programs that require matching funds. By contrast, poor institutions may not have enough money to match grants or qualify for rebates. The least-affluent colleges and universi-ties will be disproportionately affected by increases in electricity, fuel, and insurance costs, and their limited access to capital means that they will be less able to invest in energy efficiency and renewable tech-nologies that will save money in the long run. One remedy, mentioned earlier, is for institutions that want to achieve car-bon neutrality in the short term to invest in efficiency and other emissions reduc-tion projects at colleges with insufficient access to capital. But more creative efforts are needed. Perhaps a national revolving loan fund can be established. Universities with discretionary funds already do this internally, setting aside money that can be borrowed for efficiency projects; loans are repaid as energy savings accrue.

Expertise is another resource challenge. Many of the untold stories of campus greening center on problems with so-called experts who, for one reason or another, fail to meet university expecta-tions. Colleges and universities can col-laborate in identifying skills needed to design, create, operate, and maintain an energy and climate-sensitive infrastructure; can modify their research and teaching; and then can work with other organ-iza-tions, including youth training and transi-tional employment organizations, in their communities to ensure rapid diffusion of knowledge.

An additional obstacle is absence of federal policies that reinforce campus greening. This includes policies that pro-mote dramatic improvements in energy efficiency across the economy, funds for researching and developing technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs, support for demonstration projects, and strategies to make capital available to less affluent institutions so they can improve efficiency. Staff, stu-dents, and faculty can participate in the policy dialogue, adding insights from their research and experience, some of which is gained from campus greening.

Conclusions

Campus greening is reducing environ-mental footprints, saving money with increased efficiency, and showing skep-tics that progress is possible. The value of campus greening goes well beyond resources saved; greening generates inter-est and invites members of the academic community to think differently about societal values, goods consumed, and the infrastructure for shelter and mobility, raising questions about how human needs can be met in new ways. With insights

gained from greening, innovations are expected. Developing new technologies, creating new policies and analytical sys-tems that will meet current needs and will also allow future generations to meet their needs49 while producing graduates who act in favor of the environment are all underlying goals of campus greening.

Actions being taken at colleges and uni-versities include environmentally sensitive procurement, increased recycling, reduced reliance on fossil fuels and increased reliance on renewable energy, increased collaboration with state and community

climate programs, changed behaviors and expectations, improved energy efficiency, modified grounds and water management practices, and greater attention to climate effects in transportation,50 new building construction, and renovation.

As learning laboratories, college and university campuses have strengths and limitations. Unique strengths of academia include the enthusiasm of students, abil-ity to engage in discussions of difficult societal issues, capacity to innovate, and talent for inspiring future decisionmakers. Limitations include competing priorities,

lack of capital, inadequate in-house exper-tise and decisionmaking systems that may not be designed to draw effectively on the knowledge being accumulated during campus greening forays. Learning will be enhanced with careful assessment and documentation of problems and regular evaluation of progress. It will be challeng-ing for institutions to continue improving once the easy steps have been taken.

At this point in the evolution of cam-pus greening, there are many inspiring anecdotes, but data are not being gathered and reported consistently, so quantitative

Using longer-lasting compact fluorescent light bulbs is one easy step campuses can take to decrease energy use.

© J

OA

NIE

TO

BIN

/TU

FTS

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 15 12/14/07 1:25:30 PM


assessment of trends is premature. The promise is tantalizing. Countries have experienced increases in carbon emis-sions despite pledges to make reductions; if academic institutions can develop inno-vations in technology, decisionmaking, and social systems that yield decreases in carbon emissions and advance sustain-ability, they will redefine state-of-the-art.

Ann Rappaport is a faculty member in the department of Urban and Environmental Policy at Tufts University. She is co-author of Degrees That Matter: Climate Change and the University (MIT Press 2007). Since 1999, she has been involved in the Tufts Climate Initiative, helping the university to meet or beat the emissions reductions associated with the Kyoto Protocol. Her current research interests include enterprise-level decisionmaking with respect to the environment, responses to climate change, voluntary initiatives related to companies and the envi-ronment, and contemporary issues in corporate social responsibility. She is also interested in the dynamic relationship between laws and regulations and innova-tions, especially innovations that reduce carbon profiles and improve companies’ environmental practices and working conditions. She can be reached via email at [email protected].

The author offers her sincere thanks to Maria Nicolau, Jennifer Baldwin, and Jennifer Cassettari for their con-structive comments on an early draft.

NOTES

1. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statis-tics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030), Tables 170, 185, 186, 187, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/ch_3.asp (accessed 20 July 2007).

2. S. H. Creighton, Greening the Ivory Tower: Improving the Environmental Track Record of Universi-ties, Colleges and Other Institutions (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).

3. G. Winter, “Jacuzzi U? A Battle of Perks to Lure Students,” The New York Times, 5 October 2003.

4. Footprints were conceptualized as a bioregional approach in M. Wackernagel and W. E. Rees, Our Eco-logical Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1996).

5. Tufts Climate Initiative, Tufts University Green-house Gas Inventory 2006 Update, http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/ (accessed 12 August 2007).

6. Energy Information Administration, Annual Ener-gy Review, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/consump.html (accessed 9 October 2007)

7. L. Hempel, “Conceptual and Analytical Challeng-es in Building Sustainable Communities,” in D. Mazma-nian and M. Kraft, eds., Toward Sustainable Communi-

ties (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), 43–74.

8. S. Campbell, “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sus-tainable Development,” in S. Campbell and S. Fainstein, Readings in Planning Theory (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 435–458.

9. K. N. Lee, “Urban Sustainability and the Lim-its of Classical Environmentalism,” Environment and Urbanization 18, no. 1 (2006): 9–22.

10. J. Ahlstrom, M. Macquet, and U. Richter, “The Lack of a Critical Perspective in Environmental Manage-ment Research: Distortion in the Scientific Discourse,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 13 August 2007.

11. Energy Star for Higher Education, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=higher_ed.bus_highereducation (accessed 12 October 2007).

12. A. Rappaport and S. H. Creighton, Degrees That Matter: Climate Change and the University (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007).

13. Warren Wilson College, “Laursen Build-ing Renovation Complete!” press release, http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~cadcrew/laursen (accessed 19 July 2007).

14. Stanford University, Leslie Shao-ming Sun Field Station: A Case Study in Sustainable Design and Construction, http://jrbp.stanford.edu/fieldstation.php (accessed 19 July 2007).

15. Renewable Energy Access, Utility-Scale Wind Turbine for Mass. Maritime Academy, http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44708 (accessed 19 July 2007).

16. “College Is First in Oregon to Sign Talloires Dec-laration for Sustainable Future,” Lewis and Clark press release, 17 April 2005, http://www.lclark.edu/cgi-bin/shownews.cgi?1113779640.3 (accessed 19 July 2007).

17. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Volun-tary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program: Fuel and Energy Source Codes and Emission Coefficients, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html (accessed 23 October 2007).

18. K. Zezima, “All Is Recycled, Except for the Graduates,” The New York Times, 4 June 2005.

19. “Washington University in St. Louis to Invest $55 Million in Renewable Energy Research Initiative,” Washington University press release, 4 June 2007, http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/9582.html (accessed 6 June 2007).

20. A. Ju, “Faculty and Students Getting Involved in Making Climate Neutrality a Classroom Focus,” Cornell Chronicle, 4 October 2007, http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/sust.courses.aj.html (accessed 9 October 2007).

21. A. Underwood, “America’s Campuses Get Greener Than Ever,” Newsweek, 20–27 August 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20216979/site/newsweek/page/0/ (accessed 12 October 2007).

22. Office of Sustainability, Tufts University, http://www.tufts.edu/programs/sustainability/ (accessed 19 November 2007).

23. K. Lyons, Buying for the Future: Contract Man-agement and the Environmental Challenge (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999).

24. Tufts Climate Initiative, Vending Misers: Reduc-ing Energy Consumption of Vending Machines, http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/VendingMisers.html (accessed 20 October 2007).

25. Tufts Climate Initiative, Lighting Upgrades and Motion Sensors, http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/LightingControls.htm (accessed 26 October 2007).

26. Step It Up 2007, Step It Up 2: Who’s a Lead-er? http://www.stepitup2007.org/ (accessed 23 October 2007.

27. B. A. Powell, “MLK Student Union Gets a Charge from Student-Funded Solar Power System,” UC Berkeley press release, 19 November 2003, http://www

.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/11/19_solar

.shtml (accessed 20 June 2007).

28. University of Tennessee, “Crabtree Announces Plans for LEED Building Policy,” Tennessee Today, 11 September 2007, http://www.utk.edu/news/article.php?id=4222 (accessed 19 September 2007).

29. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19 (accessed 23 October 2007).

30. Energy Star for Buildings, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_bldgs#what_buildings (accessed 12 October 2007).

31. G. Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Sci-ence, 13 December 1968, 1243–48.

32. K. Marcell, J. Agyeman, and A. Rappaport, “Cooling the Campus: Experiences from a Pilot Study to Reduce Electricity Use at Tufts University, USA, Using Social Marketing Methods,” Sustainability in Higher Education 5, no. 2 (2004): 169–89.

33. J. F. DeCarolis, R. L. Goble, and C. Hohenemser, “Searching for Energy Efficiency on Campus: Clark University’s 30-Year Quest,” Environment 42, no. 4 (May 2000): 16.

34. College and University Cogeneration Systems in the U.S. and Canada (plus a few elsewhere…), http://www.energy.rochester.edu/us/list.htm (accessed 19 Sep-tember 2007).

35. E. Noonan, “Alumna Leaves $27m, Most for Power Plant,” Boston Globe, 20 May 2005.

36. The terms “carbon neutral” and “climate neutral” are used interchangeably.

37. American College and University Presi-dents Climate Commitment, http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/ (accessed 21 July 2007).

38. Rappaport and Creighton, note 12 above, page 46.

39. L. H. Litten and D. G. Terkla, eds., Advancing Sustainability in Higher Education, New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 134 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007).

40. A. Kollmuss and B. Bowell, Voluntary Offsets for Air-Travel Carbon Emissions: Evaluations and Recom-mendations of Voluntary Offset Companies (Boston, MA: Tufts Climate Initiative, December 2006), http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/carbonoffsets/index.htm (accessed 23 October 2007).

41. S. Steptoe, “Getting Schools to Think and Act Green,” Time, 10 August 2007, http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1651473_1651472_1652067,00.html (accessed 12 October 2007).

42. DeCarolis, Goble, and Hohenemser, note 33 above, page 16.

43. D. Orr, Design on the Edge: The Making of a High Performance Building (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2006).

44. Confidential interviews with the author.

45. See C. Argyris, On Organizational Learning (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1999).

46. Kollmuss and Bowell, note 40 above.

47. B. Elgin, “Little Green Lies,” BusinessWeek, 29 October 2007; and B. Walsh, “The Cost of Being Clean,” Time, 29 October 2007.

48. National Association of College and Univer-sity Business Officers, “Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year Market Value of Endowment Assets with Percent Change Between 2005 and 2006 Endowment Assets,” 2006 NACUBO Endowment Study, http://www.nacubo.org/x2376.xml (accessed 24 October 2007).

49. World Commission on Environment and Devel-opment, Our Common Future (New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1987).

50. W. Toor and S. Havlick, Transportation and Sustainable Campus Communities: Issues, Examples and Solutions (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2004).

IS A GREAT CLASSROOM RESOURCE

Check out www.heldref.org/env.phpfor lists of articles by topic.

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 16 12/14/07 1:25:34 PM

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

ENV_JF08_RAP3.indd 17 12/14/07 1:25:36 PM

env jf08 rap3 - wordpress.com · in addition, a geothermal system for heating and cooling was...

Documents