Archives for Getting to Green

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

Repair before buying a new one??

I agree on making purchasing decisions with the environment in mind is critical if we are looking for a greener lifestyle, not only in our campuses, but in our personal issues.

Whenever it is applicable, I also encourage trying to repair the damaged appliance, before buying a new one. The life-cycle of many electronics and small appliances goes beyond the time it’s in our hands, and we need to find ways to reduce the waste stream we produce.

I know that in North America is hard to find places that repair small appliances. But repairing is a critical step in re-shaping our consumer mindset for the environment.

Obviously, common sense also applies on the decision to repair vs. buy-new: if we would be talking about an old fridge or AC unit, that’s a whole other issue; new energy-efficient stuff will do better than overhauling the old one...

Mauricio, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada, at 12:30 pm EST on February 19, 2008

The video link shows a student rather unfamiliar to those of us who work with an increasing population of first-generation, immigrant, and working class college students. I generally have ONE student PER YEAR with a laptop in the classroom (if that). Access to and overuse of (and I do mean overuse, if it means stinting other important parts of life — multitasking is a poor and abusive way to treat your brain) of technology is a class issue, and one that needs more attention. We have haves and have nots here in the U.S., among college students! I’d like to see statistics like those brandished by students in the video for students without such easy access to technology.

MKM, at 1:35 pm EST on February 22, 2008

Offsets and the ACUPCC

Thanks for bringing this discussion and thoughtful analysis on offsets to Inside Higher Ed — I think it is very helpful in navigating this complex space.

1) A quick note on one element that seems to be missing — the ‘historical’ context for offsets came out of the UNFCCC negotiations and the creation of the Clean Development Mechanism, which has a sustainable development and social equity component and led to the ‘distant’ offset model. There is also the cost per tonne component: if an organization has funds that can avoid or reduce 100 tonnes in a developing country, while the same funds would only avoid or reduce 10 tonnes in the local community, it can be argued that the former is preferrable with regard to the overall concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere (this is not to suggest that local offsets are not the best option for all the reasons in the post, they very well may be, but it’s an important element of the dialog).

2) A sub-group of signatories of the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment are starting a process to develop a protocol (or endorse an existing protocol or set of standards) for dealing with offsets to serve as a guide for schools wrestling with these issues and to make a contribution to the international dialog on this issue from the higher ed sector in the US. If you’re at a signatory school and you and your president would like to be a part of this process, please contact us at Second Nature.

Georges Dyer, Senior Fellow at Second Nature, at 12:05 pm EST on March 4, 2008