News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Fields for study (Feb. 13, 2008)
There currently are no comments on this blog post.
First things first (Feb. 16, 2008) (1 comments)
A critical decision (Feb. 18, 2008) (1 comments)
Follow the kilowatts (Feb. 20, 2008)
There currently are no comments on this blog post.
Quid pro carbon? (Feb. 22, 2008) (1 comments)
Cutting energy by cutting keggers (Feb. 24, 2008)
There currently are no comments on this blog post.
Getting winded (Feb. 27, 2008)
There currently are no comments on this blog post.
Journal boxes (Feb. 29, 2008)
There currently are no comments on this blog post.
The onset of offsets (March 3, 2008) (1 comments)
Sustaining the cash flow (March 4, 2008)
There currently are no comments on this blog post.
Mr/Ms Rendell—or whoever you are—has done a nice job of summarizing the basics of starting up a carbon mitigation program. And as he/she indicates, it doesn’t stop there.
I have only two quibbles with this approach: 1) carbon, and 2) neutrality.
First, focusing solely on carbon and not broader sustainability goals can forever mire the approach in an accounting framework instead of a benefits framework. Instead of counting carbon atoms alone, perhaps we should focus on designing benefits for people. In other words, we will get broader buy in/participation if we launch a conservation/efficiency program that is designed to channel cost savings into needed social benefits rather than for the campus general fund. Indeed, social benefits—whatever they are for a given campus—need to be the primary reason for the party, and carbon mitigation the icing on the cake.
Second, as M/M Rendell points out, neutrality means using offsets. These can be problematic. Only now are approaches to developing so-called ‘local offsets’ evolving that may offer more profound social benefits to carbon reduction projects. Stay tuned.
But focusing on ‘neutrality’ also may force an accounting approach instead of a benefits approach. Smart corporations have seen the folly of this and are looking at ‘Beyond Neutrality: Climate Leadership.” I highly recommend the BSR white paper of a similar title (www.bsr.org/insight/reports.cfm). What Climate Leadership means is reaching out to the campuses’ non-traditional upstream and downstream partners and working on their carbon/benefits issues. While reducing a third-party’s carbon footprint may not count against the campus carbon inventory, a world of leadership, people benefits, and broader sustainability goals can be achieved.
Yes, my campus like many others is now planning how to achieve carbon neutrality under the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). However, we should not overlook the ACUPCC required elements that go to course content, research, and broader campus and community life goals. These are the most brilliant, in my view, elements of the ACUPCC because they force—or should—an integration of sustainability into the ACUPCC planning process. It’s not just about counting carbon.
Of course, the steps M/M Rendell lay out are necessary first steps to reducing carbon emissions; however, they should be preceded by a contemplation of how a broader approach to carbon leadership can be designed to deliver sustainable people benefits that thereby drive a wider conservation embrace across disparate constituencies. Otherwise, we campus sustainability practitioners may limit our repertoire to songs only sung by the choir.
D.Newport, at 12:25 pm EST on February 17, 2008